Republican Tax Plan Revealed

[Breccia]

Mitch McConnell: Nobody in the middle class will see a tax increase.
Everyone Else: Here, all these studies using objective math shows they do.
Mitch McConnell: I misspoke. Of course, some people will see tax increases, it's impossible otherwise. Only an idiot would believe that.

[Xeones]

Lol, just brutal.

What are the odds of the Senate not being able to pass this/their version? I mean, is this basically a done deal?

I think it's pretty good odds to pass, republicans exist for the sole purpose of corporate tax cuts.

I'll be expecting all democrats to run on fixing it in 18 and 20.

[cubby]

I think it's pretty good odds to pass, republicans exist for the sole purpose of corporate tax cuts.

I'll be expecting all democrats to run on fixing it in 18 and 20.

That kind of thing could unite a party that is missing a consistent national message.

[Mittens]

Out of all the articles that came of out in regards to the Republican tax cut, this one is the most retarded.

‘I don’t feel wealthy’: The upper middle class is worried about paying for the tax overhaul


I get that paying the tax cuts for the rich feels unfair, but c'mon the upper middle class doesn't deserve those deductions in the first place.

[Breccia]

Hey, remember when Trump said he would cut down on drug prices? And maybe opioids as well?

Yeah, nobody else does, either. Pfizer stands to make $54 billion from the Trump tax plan.

[Felya]

Out of all the articles that came of out in regards to the Republican tax cut, this one is the most retarded.

‘I don’t feel wealthy’: The upper middle class is worried about paying for the tax overhaul


I get that paying the tax cuts for the rich feels unfair, but c'mon the upper middle class doesn't deserve those deductions in the first place.

What would make them deserve it?

[Cthulhu 2020]

But rich people will get tax cuts and it will all come trickling down!

Trickle down economics (Without the pee): Give all of your bread to the people who have giant store houses of bread, in hopes that you'll get some crumbs.

Funny how dumb people are to actually believe this shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Out of all the articles that came of out in regards to the Republican tax cut, this one is the most retarded.

‘I don’t feel wealthy’: The upper middle class is worried about paying for the tax overhaul


I get that paying the tax cuts for the rich feels unfair, but c'mon the upper middle class doesn't deserve those deductions in the first place.

Yeah man, time to get rid of 2% take credits for the middle class to give massive corporations who are making billions in profit every year a 15% tax cut.

[Underverse]

Let's see, I would be paying $19,000 of federal taxes, $5,000 of state taxes, $6,400 social security and $1,500 medicare...

...on $37,000 income, thanks to tuition waivers which would be taxable income under this plan. So that leaves me with roughly $5000 to pay rent ($12,000/year) electric/internet bills ($3000/year) and oh right lol forgot FOOD.

Yeah, I would be fucked. Guess I'm still young enough to sell my body so it's not all bad

[Mittens]

What would make them deserve it?

Whether they need it. I don't think someone earning above 6 figures needs any sort of financial aid.

[Breccia]

As the GOP prepares to vote the tax cut for the rich into law, Trump has once again decided to step in.

I am proud of the Rep. House & Senate for working so hard on cutting taxes {& reform.} We’re getting close! Now, how about ending the unfair & highly unpopular Indiv Mandate in OCare & reducing taxes even further? Cut top rate to 35% w/all of the rest going to middle income cuts?

Once again, Trump has proven he does not know how the government works. He might think he does, but he doesn't, and continues to prove such.

Everyone except Trump knows the bill is blocked by reconciliation rules, and is already over budget. If you want to add something -- such as cutting the top rate down further -- you have to remove something -- such as the federal subsidies that would not be given, because poor people would likely stop buying insurance entirely. (Granted, this also assumes these poor people magically stop spending Medicare, Medicaid, or walking away from medical bills and sticking everyone else with the bill, which is why the ACA has an individual mandate in the first place. But this is the GOP we're talking about)

But the numbers don't work for what Trump is demanding. In fact, they're not all that close.

The CRFB itemizes their analyses, and by comparing the current House bill and Trump's plan in April we see that the House bill costs the government $1.1 trillion by changing the individual rates, while Trump's plan would cost the government $1.5 trillion. That's a gap of $400 billion, close to, but higher than, the amount cutting the individual mandate would save when poor people stop buying insurance and magically stop spending money on health care, possibly by dying ($338 billion).

BUT.

Trump's plan involved cutting the lowest rates to 10%, not the current House 12%. Therefore, the House plan has people giving 2% of their mid-range income to the federal government Trump does not. The rest of the brackets are basically the same.

Regardless, having everyone pay that 2% extra on their first $45,000 of taxable income is significant, quickly. Using 2014 Census data, we see that the change would be about $25 billion dollars --

"That's not so bad!"

-- every year. Actually more, if we assume any amount of wage growth at all.

So that means, giving the top earners that 35% rate down from 39.6% must actually cost $650 billion dollars, maybe more with that special "bump" rate we've discussed earlier. So even estimating cautiously, that's nearly double what the CBO says cutting the ACA mandate would save.

It's not possible to add this, and even if it was, it's not possible to give what's left over to the middle class.

And of course, let's re-read that message.

Cut top rate to 35% w/all of the rest going to middle income cuts

w/all of the rest going to middle income

all of the rest

I think we've figured out where Trump's priorities lie. Despite claiming such things as, well, this:

First, the plan would not cut taxes for America’s richest households. “The wealthy are not getting a tax cut under our plan,” Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic advisor, said on Good Morning America. Second, the plan would slash taxes for America’s middle class. “Our framework includes our explicit commitment that tax reform will protect low-income and middle-income households, not the wealthy and well-connected,” President Trump said in a speech in Indiana. “They can call me all they want. It’s not going to help. I’m doing the right thing, and it’s not good for me. Believe me.” Third, the tax plan would not increase the deficit. “We think this tax plan will cut down the deficits by a trillion dollars,” Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said on Fox Business Network. “That’s a large number.”

there is no defending "give the rest to the middle class". It's objectively impossible to claim Trump wants the middle class to prosper, and that he doesn't want to help the rich, when he directly states the opposite.

[cubby]

There is no defending "give the rest to the middle class". It's objectively impossible to claim Trump wants the middle class to prosper, and that he doesn't want to help the rich, when he directly states the opposite.

And as if it cant' get any better, there are direct tax breaks for golf course owners - as if the back scratching couldn't get more obvious.

Guess which country's president owns golf courses?

[Felya]

Whether they need it. I don't think someone earning above 6 figures needs any sort of financial aid.

Then why are those making 7 figures getting the aid, while those making 6 getting a cut? 6 figures isn’t even double the median household in US. Why exactly target upper middle class, to give a tax cut to the top?

[Breccia]

Another updated Tax Policy Center review of the House bill.

And not enough has changed to make it anything other than a tax cut for the rich.

By 2027, people in the lowest quintile save $10. Second lowest, $50. Third lowest AKA the median, $360. That's less than half of what they get in 2018.

Over seven percent see tax increases right away. Twenty-four percent by 2027.

Almost every income bracket sees their tax cut lowered by 2027, unless you're in the top 1%, then it goes UP. 95-99th percentile see a drop of about 25%. Everyone else loses at least half, mostly more than that.

The mean savings are higher than the median, because the people at the very high end save so much money it offsets everything.

And the top 1% would get nearly half of the benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

MilitaryTimes reports that a GOP proposal is under...look, just read it.

A congressional proposal to make service members buy into their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits surprised veterans groups on Tuesday, with advocates divided over whether it amounts to a long-term fix for the benefit or an unfair bill for veterans.

"This new tax on troops is absurd," said Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Brian Duffy in a statement. "Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops.

"Congress must stop nickeling and diming America’s service members and veterans."

The plan — draft legislation from House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn. — would deduct $2,400 from future service members’ paychecks to establish eligibility for revamped post-military education benefits. This was first reported Tuesday by Task & Purpose.

Currently, the post-9/11 GI Bill offers full tuition to a four-year state college (or the equivalent tuition payout for a private school) plus a monthly housing stipend to any service member who spends at least three years on active duty, and to reservists who are mobilized to active-duty for extended periods. Troops wounded while serving are also eligible.

Unlike the older Montgomery GI Bill benefit, the post-9/11 GI Bill does not require any fees or pay reductions for eligibility. The new proposal would change that, taking up to $100 a month from new enlistees’ paychecks for the right to access the benefit after they leave the ranks.

The money collected would amount to a fraction of the overall cost of the veterans education benefit. Congressional staff estimate the move would bring in about $3.1 billion over the next 10 years, while total GI Bill spending is expected to total more than $100 billion over the same decade.

Supporters of the plan say having service members "buy in" to the benefit would strengthen it against periodic attempts by budget planners to trim veterans education benefits. Last year, veterans advocates sparred over proposed cuts to GI Bill benefits given to the children of troops, and a plan to cap some housing stipends connected to the program.

"It’s infinitely more difficult to get rid of or cut the GI Bill if troops have paid into that benefit," said Will Hubbard, vice president of government affairs for Student Veterans of America. "This is about how we can make the GI Bill protected and buffered against budget fights for years to come."

SVA is one of several groups expected to testify before Congress on April 26 on Roe’s bill, known unofficially as the "Lifetime GI Bill Act," and a host of other changes to current Veterans Affairs education benefits.

They include expanding eligibility for wounded troops, families of deceased service members, and some reservists currently excluded from the program. Most of those changes have broad support in the veterans community, although how to pay for them has been a point of contention.

The new buy-in would create enough money for that expansion, although veterans groups in the past have opposed similar ideas.

Hubbard said SVA officials believe the GI Bill program needs changes to survive and transform from a wartime benefit to an enduring contract with future military volunteers.

Officials from the Tragedy Assistance Program for survivors, who are also scheduled to testify next week, echoed that support. Officials from the American Legion, who will also testify at the hearing, do not support the draft proposal.

VFW officials have gone further, vowing to fight the plan. They argue the Post-9/11 GI Bill "is earned through honorable service, not through out-of-pocket fees" and accused lawmakers of moving "to claw back this critical educational benefit" even while troops are still serving in wars overseas.

Paul Rieckhoff, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, offered similar frustration with the proposal. He said his group will fight any "tax" on troops to pay for education benefits, and that he doubts there is much support in the public for such a plan.

"Pushing this GI Bill tax proposal on troops in a time of war is political cowardice," he said.

"Some politicians would rather make backroom deals than raise taxes or find other ways to support our troops as bombs continue to fall overseas."

Roe’s staff said the proposal is part of a larger effort in recent months to "address long-sought improvements to educational assistance benefits for veterans." The chairman also promised an "open, transparent and inclusive" debate on the issue, and said none of the ideas under consideration is guaranteed to advance through the committee.

Democrats on the committee have already voiced concerns behind the scenes about the proposal, saying they want to make sure that all voices are heard on any drastic education benefits changes. That could include not just veterans groups and VA officials but also Defense Department representatives, since the GI Bill is a major recruiting tool for the services.

No similar legislation has yet been introduced in the Senate, although advocates have been discussing the plan with lawmakers in both chambers for several months. Hubbard said the cuts proposed by Congress to the benefit last year played a role in drafting the new legislation.

As written, the draft bill would cover only new enlistees, and would not charge the $2,400 eligibility fee to troops already in the ranks.

First of all, I'd like to remind everyone how much Trump said we should support the troops and veterans. This is the exact opposite.

Secondly, a reminder, the current House tax cut for the rich means you must declare educational funds -- such as the GI Bill -- and pay taxes on them. We've talked about it before, and how badly it screws graduate students. Well, now it also applies to vets coming home and trying to go to college.

[Edge-]

So...they're literally adding a $2,400 tax to active duty service members who want to benefit from the GI bill?

I guess you make so much in the military that you're considered party of the upper class. Pretty strange group to target given the rhetoric and target demographics of the GOP.

[cubby]

And as if it couldn't get any worse, now the GOP is adding repeal of the ACA to the Tax Bill.

Not sure if this will help or hurt the bill.

[Breccia]

So...they're literally adding a $2,400 tax to active duty service members who want to benefit from the GI bill?

"Fee". So it won't be called a tax.

[PACOX]

Smart, threaten to repeal ACA again...WHILE SIGN UPS ARE OPE N!

Well, great way not to get their bill passed. Honestly I dont think they want to pass anything. Too many of them are anti-Trumpism and arent going to pass anything to favor that wing. Others are phoning it in to keep their donors off their back until the party unify again. Then you have the handful that actually believe this crap will pass.

Thats just my guess though, I could be 100% wrong.

[Breccia]

Smart, threaten to repeal ACA again

Actually, it is. This will get them the votes they need. I believe there are GOP Reps and Senators out there, who are willing enough to vote for either the ACA repeal or the tax cut for the rich, that they'll be on board with both. For example, Rand Paul.

Collins appears to be a "no" still. She didn't want the repeal, and she doesn't want a reduced rate for millionaires, which are now both in the Senate bill.

[akris15]

Actually, it is. This will get them the votes they need. I believe there are GOP Reps and Senators out there, who are willing enough to vote for either the ACA repeal or the tax cut for the rich, that they'll be on board with both. For example, Rand Paul.

Collins appears to be a "no" still. She didn't want the repeal, and she doesn't want a reduced rate for millionaires, which are now both in the Senate bill.

McCain probably won't vote for it either...where does Murkowski stand with this added back in?

[Breccia]

McCain probably won't vote for it either...where does Murkowski stand with this added back in?

Both McCain and Murkowski have refused to answer, making them both "yes" votes.

- - - Updated - - -

GOP Plans to Repeal Obamacare Mandate for Health Coverage

To help pay for the GOP tax bill, Republican Senate leaders announced Tuesday that they plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act's requirement that Americans maintain health coverage.

The announcement comes one day after President Donald Trump urged Senators to eliminate the Obamacare mandate and use the savings to reduce the top income tax rate to 35 percent, a move that would exclusively benefit individuals earning over $500,000 and couples earning over $1,000,000 under the current Senate bill.

"We're optimistic that inserting the individual mandate repeal (into the tax bill) would be helpful," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters after a caucus meeting.

It was not immediately clear what Senate Republicans planned to do with the savings, although a Senate GOP aide said they would be used to "provide more relief for middle-class families."

Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., suggested earlier in the day that Republicans should use the money to help taxpayers who would be affected by the loss of the state and local tax deduction, which the Senate bill currently eliminates.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates repealing the mandate penalty would save $338 billion over the next 10 years, which would help Republicans pay for their $1.5 trillion tax bill. But ending the mandate would only save money because the CBO projects 13 million fewer people would have health insurance by 2027, meaning the government would spend less money subsidizing coverage through private insurance or Medicaid.

Premiums on the individual insurance market would also go up 10 percent as a result.

In a joint letter, the top industry groups representing insurers, hospitals and doctors came out strongly against repealing the mandate, arguing it was necessary to attract enough healthy patients to offset the cost of insuring Americans with pre-existing conditions.

"There will be serious consequences if Congress simply repeals the mandate while leaving the insurance reforms in place: millions more will be uninsured or face higher premiums, challenging their ability to access the care they need," the letter read, which was signed by America's Health Insurance Plans, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the Blue Cross-Blue Shield Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Federation of American Hospitals.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement that Republicans were "so determined to provide tax giveaways to the rich that they’re willing to raise premiums on millions of middle-class Americans and kick 13 million people off their health care."

Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee marking up the Senate bill were livid at the news, especially after the chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said it was premature to discuss the changes until they were made official.

"We’re talking about a whole new subject, a subject that, as I’ve indicated, can raise health insurance premiums on millions of people," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

Senate Republicans tried to pass a narrow "skinny repeal" bill that would have repealed the individual mandate earlier this year, but it failed after three of them — Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John McCain of Arizona — voted it down. It was not immediately clear whether they would support including a similar measure in the tax bill.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told reporters that some members on Tuesday indicated they were unsure about returning to the health care debate, but that they had not signaled they were a hard "no" if the measures were included.

"There are some people who are concerned about including the mandate in the tax legislation, but my gut tells me we will reach a consensus on doing that," he said. "It makes too much sense."

House Republicans are planning to vote soon on their own tax bill, which so far does not include a repeal of the individual mandate, despite a push from House conservatives to add the measure. Republican leaders in both chambers are hoping to complete a final bill before the end of the year.

So, yeah, few things.

1) The GOP is keen on passing the tax cut for the rich, at the expense of 13 million people kicked off health care, and 10% more cost spike immediately for everyone else.

2) The GOP is also staying just under $1.5 trillion by having everything that would help the middle class expire in under 10 years.

"But wouldn't that encourage them to vote for them again?"

Well, the business cuts are permanent, so...no.

3) A reminder: the two pillars of the ACA are
3a) everyone has to buy health insurance, and
3b) health insurance companies can't refuse anyone.

Removing one, but not the other, won't work. And everyone knows it, including the GOP.