Tax Bill
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
57Brave
Well-known member
Fox NewsVerified account @FoxNews
.@IvankaTrump: "I'm really looking forward to doing a lot of traveling in April when people realize the effect that this has... The vast majority will be [doing their taxes] on a single postcard."
if there is a god in heaven she will be baking cakes stuffed with files
.@IvankaTrump: "I'm really looking forward to doing a lot of traveling in April when people realize the effect that this has... The vast majority will be [doing their taxes] on a single postcard."
if there is a god in heaven she will be baking cakes stuffed with files
57Brave
Well-known member
LOLGOP @LOLGOP
1m1 minute ago
LOLGOP Retweeted Jesse Ferguson
Ivanka Trump is prepared to tour the country so people can thank her for this and fighting so hard to give her family hundreds of millions in tax cuts.
sturg33
I
Still not a Trump-ian... But you better believe I'm a tax cut advocate. And yeah, sadly Trump has been an enormous improvement in policy over his predecessor (bracing for racist accusation)
Awesome that we are at a point you can't support Trump if he enacts policies that align with your beliefs. THe left is delusional right now.
I fear for your safety 57. Its ok that the country is doing better today than at any point under Obama. Its a good thing.
I fear for your safety 57. Its ok that the country is doing better today than at any point under Obama. Its a good thing.
Absolutely. But he's been on fire this past month. I bet he is going to improve dramatically as he holds the office. After his full 8 years he will be remembered fondly in the annals of history.
Nope - Arms sales to Ukraine (hello Russia collusion / Jerusalem as capital / Refusal to comply with the UN.
Everything I could have hoped for. Oh yeah - That silly thing like the economy roaring.
57Brave
Well-known member
Noticing that 13M number was in a forum dedicated to another topic, let's bring it back here.
Brookings Inst:
The tax legislation reported by the Senate Finance Committee last week included repeal of the individual mandate, which was created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and requires individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a penalty. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
estimated that this proposal would cause large reductions in insurance coverage, reaching 13 million people in the long run.
Supporters of repealing the individual mandate have argued that the resulting reductions in insurance coverage are not a cause for concern because they would be voluntary. Rigorous versions of this argument acknowledge that individuals who drop coverage would
lose protection against high medical costs, find it harder to access care, and likely experience
worse health outcomes, but assert that the very fact that these individuals would choose to drop insurance coverage shows that they will be better off on net. On that basis, advocates of repealing the mandate claim that its repeal would do no harm. However, this argument suffers from two serious flaws.
The first flaw in this argument is that it assumes individuals bear the full cost of their decisions about whether to obtain insurance coverage; in fact, one person’s decision to go without health insurance coverage shifts costs onto other people. Notably, CBO has estimated that the departure of healthy enrollees from the individual market spurred by repeal of the individual mandate will increase individual market premiums by 10 percent, causing some in that market to involuntarily lose coverage and causing those who remain to bear higher costs. In addition, many of those who become uninsured will end up needing health care but not be able to pay for it, imposing costs on other participants in the health care system. Because individuals who choose to become uninsured do not bear the full cost of that decision, they may choose to do so even in circumstances where the benefits of coverage—accounting for its effects on both the covered individual and the rest of society—exceed its costs.
The second flaw in this argument is that it assumes individual decisions about whether to purchase health insurance coverage reflect a fully informed, fully rational weighing of the cost and benefits. In fact, there is strong reason to believe that many individuals, particularly the healthier individuals most affected by the mandate, are likely to undervalue insurance coverage. This likely reflects a variety of well-documented psychological biases, including a tendency to place too much weight on upfront costs of obtaining coverage (including the “hassle costs” of enrolling) relative to the benefits insurance coverage would provide if the individual got sick and needed care at some point in the future. It is therefore likely that many people who would drop insurance coverage due to repeal of the individual mandate would end up worse off, even solely considering the costs and benefits to the individuals themselves.
Brookings Inst:
The tax legislation reported by the Senate Finance Committee last week included repeal of the individual mandate, which was created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and requires individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a penalty. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
estimated that this proposal would cause large reductions in insurance coverage, reaching 13 million people in the long run.
Supporters of repealing the individual mandate have argued that the resulting reductions in insurance coverage are not a cause for concern because they would be voluntary. Rigorous versions of this argument acknowledge that individuals who drop coverage would
lose protection against high medical costs, find it harder to access care, and likely experience
worse health outcomes, but assert that the very fact that these individuals would choose to drop insurance coverage shows that they will be better off on net. On that basis, advocates of repealing the mandate claim that its repeal would do no harm. However, this argument suffers from two serious flaws.
The first flaw in this argument is that it assumes individuals bear the full cost of their decisions about whether to obtain insurance coverage; in fact, one person’s decision to go without health insurance coverage shifts costs onto other people. Notably, CBO has estimated that the departure of healthy enrollees from the individual market spurred by repeal of the individual mandate will increase individual market premiums by 10 percent, causing some in that market to involuntarily lose coverage and causing those who remain to bear higher costs. In addition, many of those who become uninsured will end up needing health care but not be able to pay for it, imposing costs on other participants in the health care system. Because individuals who choose to become uninsured do not bear the full cost of that decision, they may choose to do so even in circumstances where the benefits of coverage—accounting for its effects on both the covered individual and the rest of society—exceed its costs.
The second flaw in this argument is that it assumes individual decisions about whether to purchase health insurance coverage reflect a fully informed, fully rational weighing of the cost and benefits. In fact, there is strong reason to believe that many individuals, particularly the healthier individuals most affected by the mandate, are likely to undervalue insurance coverage. This likely reflects a variety of well-documented psychological biases, including a tendency to place too much weight on upfront costs of obtaining coverage (including the “hassle costs” of enrolling) relative to the benefits insurance coverage would provide if the individual got sick and needed care at some point in the future. It is therefore likely that many people who would drop insurance coverage due to repeal of the individual mandate would end up worse off, even solely considering the costs and benefits to the individuals themselves.
57Brave
Well-known member
Kyle GriffinVerified account @kylegriffin1
2h2 hours ago
“The Republicans’ first legislative triumph of 2017 will ensure a financial windfall for the president and his family in a way that is virtually unprecedented in American political history, experts said.”
wasn't that long ago "corruption" around here was defined as someone taking a meeting after the asker donated millions to a charity foundation.
good times
2h2 hours ago
“The Republicans’ first legislative triumph of 2017 will ensure a financial windfall for the president and his family in a way that is virtually unprecedented in American political history, experts said.”
wasn't that long ago "corruption" around here was defined as someone taking a meeting after the asker donated millions to a charity foundation.
good times
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Granted, we all want job growth in areas that pay better than the fast food industry, but I don't get people laughing this off. A couple of years ago teenagers around here couldn't find a job because the typical teen jobs were filled by adults who were doing all they could to make ends meet. Now every fast food place around me seems to be hiring. New construction houses have started in all of the subdivisions that were abandoned when the housing bubble popped. Home values are up, 401ks are up, gas prices are down. We should be thankful for this stuff, it's making a lot of people's lives a lot better.