Healthcare going forward

[KaraBulut]

...Americans should be incensed at having to pay him...

Something that the media hasn't covered is a fine detail about the presidency: it doesn't have an "expense account". The White House bills the president monthly for the food they eat, the personal items they use and other "non-official" expenditures. One reason that Trump seems to invite people to join him for lunch/dinner is that this makes the meal "official business" which the taxpayers will cover. If he eats alone or with his family, the meal is paid for out of his pocket.

Trump is notorious for not paying bills. It will be interesting to see how getting a bill each month for his expenses is going over.

...Most people pay in less than the eventual receive. People who pay only that and not income tax are paying nothing to support the country. The top 20% of tax payers pay 84% of the federal income tax.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...674384&usg=AFQjCNFMnsSVoGLjoHgbrV_2soNNM_bAQQ

The top 40% pay 106% of income taxes. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...s.html&usg=AFQjCNGRLe0VvTz_q7dPhjCN5K7sbvUYoQ

One thing that you learn after reading a lot of graduate theses is that it's easy to distort facts by hiding them behind "percentages" and not presenting the actual information.

The percentages you're citing came from two sources- a CBO report and report by the Tax Policy Center. Here's what they're not telling you:

• The "top 20% of income earners" means that your household makes $134,300 per year. For a family of two living in urban areas, that's not a lot of money. As such, 51% of taxpayers are in the top 20% of income earners. In other words, 51% of households pay 85% of the federal taxes.
• The "bottom 20% of income earners" means you make $47,300 per year or less. This is less than 15% of the households in the US. The researcher presented this group as "paying no income taxes" or "paying negative income taxes" by adjusting their taxes paid against the benefits (SSI, food stamps, government assistance, etc) that they receive. This includes a lot of students, retired and disabled people, so it's not exactly a fair presentation to imply that they're not taxpayers since many are retired people who pay state and local taxes but don't make enough to exceed the Federal Poverty Level where one has to pay income taxes.
• Paying 45% of Federal income taxes doesn't mean that this group is paying 45% of their gross income toward taxes. What it means is that these 3 million US citizens are making a shitload of money compared to the other 99% of Americans.
• The amount of Federal income that comes from payroll taxes has been steadily increasing as the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. Our tax system has been progressive for decades- decades in which social unrest has been relatively moderate. History tells us that when the wealthy get wealthier and the poorer get poorer, it's a recipe for social unrest... or even social revolution.

 

[Benvolio]

Something that the media hasn't covered is a fine detail about the presidency: it doesn't have an "expense account". The White House bills the president monthly for the food they eat, the personal items they use and other "non-official" expenditures. One reason that Trump seems to invite people to join him for lunch/dinner is that this makes the meal "official business" which the taxpayers will cover. If he eats alone or with his family, the meal is paid for out of his pocket.

Trump is notorious for not paying bills. It will be interesting to see how getting a bill each month for his expenses is going over.





One thing that you learn after reading a lot of graduate theses is that it's easy to distort facts by hiding them behind "percentages" and not presenting the actual information.

The percentages you're citing came from two sources- a CBO report and report by the Tax Policy Center. Here's what they're not telling you:

• The "top 20% of income earners" means that your household makes $134,300 per year. For a family of two living in urban areas, that's not a lot of money. As such, 51% of taxpayers are in the top 20% of income earners. In other words, 51% of households pay 85% of the federal taxes.
• The "bottom 20% of income earners" means you make $47,300 per year or less. This is less than 15% of the households in the US. The researcher presented this group as "paying no income taxes" or "paying negative income taxes" by adjusting their taxes paid against the benefits (SSI, food stamps, government assistance, etc) that they receive. This includes a lot of students, retired and disabled people, so it's not exactly a fair presentation to imply that they're not taxpayers since many are retired people who pay state and local taxes but don't make enough to exceed the Federal Poverty Level where one has to pay income taxes.
• Paying 45% of Federal income taxes doesn't mean that this group is paying 45% of their gross income toward taxes. What it means is that these 3 million US citizens are making a shitload of money compared to the other 99% of Americans.
• The amount of Federal income that comes from payroll taxes has been steadily increasing as the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. Our tax system has been progressive for decades- decades in which social unrest has been relatively moderate. History tells us that when the wealthy get wealthier and the poorer get poorer, it's a recipe for social unrest... or even social revolution.

No, no. You are sadly confused. You said:
"The "top 20% of income earners" means that your household makes $134,300 per year. For a family of two living in urban areas, that's not a lot of money. As such, 51% of taxpayers are in the top 20% of income earners. In other words, 51% of households pay 85% of the federal taxes."
What you chart shows is that The top fifth (20%) make above 134,00 and as a group earn 51.3% of the total US income and that top 20% pay 83.9% of the total income tax.
It is not true that 51% of taxpayers are in the top 20% of income earners, nor is it true that 51% of households pay 85% of taxes.
The bottom fifth pay negative income tax because payroll taxes are not income taxes and because the bottom 20% receive gifts from the government called earned income credit.
The top 1% pay 45.7% of tax on 17.1% of income. To be in that group they earn above 615,000
The rich have gotten richer, but it is not true that it results in the poor getting poorer. The rich are not taking from the poor and pulling the rich down will nor raise the poor. Our rich are extremely rich because they sell for small amounts into the largest, richest market in the history of the world, by far. No other market has ever come close.
The chart is wrong in calling payroll taxes Federal revenue. It goes to a separate fund and not spent for federal purposes.

 

[opinterph]

The bottom fifth pay negative income tax because payroll taxes are not income taxes and because the bottom 20% receive gifts from the government called earned income credit.

For Most Households, It’s About the Payroll Tax, Not the Income Tax (Tax Policy Center; April 2015)​

 

[Sausy]

The important component isn't that the richest appear to be bearing an incredible share of the weight but what do they really pay as a rate? And there, the absolute disconnect comes into effect between how unfair and regressive our system has become. If you are making a billion and paying one hundred million(just making an example, not an exact scenario)of course you look like you more than pay your fair share. But Donald Trump's assertion we have the highest tax rate in the industrial world is a laughable, pants on fire lie.

And calling the earned income tax credit a "gift" from the federal government? I've had it up to here with the right...these are people working hard who are not receiving welfare and not working but getting enough to supplement their income to allow them the incredibly generous possibility of barely keeping their heads above water.

 

[KaraBulut]

The chart is wrong in calling payroll taxes Federal revenue. It goes to a separate fund and not spent for federal purposes.

This is why I make sure that I present sources in posts that I make... because this stuff is so complicated that it's really hard to explain to people who haven't worked in public service.

Here's the Source.

Remember Al Gore saying, "Social Security lockbox"? That's an example of the public's misunderstanding of government finance and budgeting. There is no lockbox. Money taken in from "social security taxes" goes into general revenue at the federal level and it is reported as such. The government spends that money the same way they spend incomes from every other source.

The government mails the US public a "statement" from their SSI paid as if that money is sitting in a bank waiting for them to retire. It's bullshit.

This is how the Federal Budget shows "Revenue" aka "Federal Receipts":

Congress wants to cut corporate income taxes and cut income taxes for the high earners. That means that an increasing amount of the Federal Budget is financed by money coming from "social security" and "medicare" taxes (aka FICA). That falls directly on the back of the middle class.

All those sources go into the general funds and the Congress is able to use them in any way they want. There's no vault in Fort Knox that stores gold bought with "social security taxes".

...Our rich are extremely rich because they sell for small amounts into the largest, richest market in the history of the world, by far. No other market has ever come close.

So, let me explain this with an example:

Scenario 1:
I'm a single taxpayer. I work as an accountant. I get payroll checks totaling $150,000 per year.
I pay 6.2% Social Security Tax on the first $127,200. $7,887 comes out of my check
I pay 1.45% Medicare tax on the full $150,000. $2,175 comes out of my check
I pay income tax of about 23% - $34,500 comes out of my check
My net pay for the year is $105,438 - about 70% of my gross pay.

Scenario 2:
I am a stock trader. This year, I sold $250,000 in stocks that I bough last year for $100,000, so my net income is $150,000.
I pay long term capital gains of 20% on the $150,000 net income= $30,000
After tax, I net $120,000- 80% of my "net income".

So, the person working for a living and getting a $150K/year paycheck in Scenario 1 makes $105,438 after taxes.
The person living off capital gains of $150,000 (Scenario 2) makes $120,000 and pays no Social Security or Medicare taxes.

Neither of these people making $150,000 would pay the ACA supplemental tax, by the way.

The ACA "tax" is actually a premium on wage earners (those guys in Scenario #1). The ACA tax is an additional 0.9% Medicare tax paid on earnings over $250,000 per year. In other words, if I make $300,000 per year, I pay 0.9% on the $50,000 that I made over $250,000 ($300,000 minus $250,000 = $50,000). That's an additional $450 if you're trying to calculate it.

The guy in Scenario #2 who lives off stock sales. He pays no ACA tax.

Does anyone feel sorry that someone making $300,000 has to pay $450 to help finance health insurance for the poor?


The ACA tax that is pissing off the wealthy people (like the Koch Brothers, for example) is a 3.8% tax on non-payroll incomes over $250,000 per year. The guys in Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 still don't pay this 3.8% ACA tax. However, someone making $750,000 in capital gains (no payroll and no payroll tax) has to pay 3.8% of $500,000 (the amount over $250,000) which would be $9,500 on an income of $750,000. Do you feel sorry for them now?

See what I mean about this stuff giving people a migraine?

 

[Benvolio]

This is why I make sure that I present sources in posts that I make... because this stuff is so complicated that it's really hard to explain to people who haven't worked in public service.

Here's the Source.

Remember Al Gore saying, "Social Security lockbox"? That's an example of the public's misunderstanding of government finance and budgeting. There is no lockbox. Money taken in from "social security taxes" goes into general revenue at the federal level and it is reported as such. The government spends that money the same way they spend incomes from every other source.

The government mails the US public a "statement" from their SSI paid as if that money is sitting in a bank waiting for them to retire. It's bullshit.

This is how the Federal Budget shows "Revenue" aka "Federal Receipts":

Congress wants to cut corporate income taxes and cut income taxes for the high earners. That means that an increasing amount of the Federal Budget is financed by money coming from "social security" and "medicare" taxes (aka FICA). That falls directly on the back of the middle class.

All those sources go into the general funds and the Congress is able to use them in any way they want. There's no vault in Fort Knox that stores gold bought with "social security taxes".


So, let me explain this with an example:

Scenario 1:
I'm a single taxpayer. I work as an accountant. I get payroll checks totaling $150,000 per year.
I pay 6.2% Social Security Tax on the first $127,200. $7,887 comes out of my check
I pay 1.45% Medicare tax on the full $150,000. $2,175 comes out of my check
I pay income tax of about 23% - $34,500 comes out of my check
My net pay for the year is $105,438 - about 70% of my gross pay.

Scenario 2:
I am a stock trader. This year, I sold $250,000 in stocks that I bough last year for $100,000, so my net income is $150,000.
I pay long term capital gains of 20% on the $150,000 net income= $30,000
After tax, I net $120,000- 80% of my "net income".

So, the person working for a living and getting a $150K/year paycheck in Scenario 1 makes $105,438 after taxes.
The person living off capital gains of $150,000 (Scenario 2) makes $120,000 and pays no Social Security or Medicare taxes.

Neither of these people making $150,000 would pay the ACA supplemental tax, by the way.

The ACA "tax" is actually a premium on wage earners (those guys in Scenario #1). The ACA tax is an additional 0.9% Medicare tax paid on earnings over $250,000 per year. In other words, if I make $300,000 per year, I pay 0.9% on the $50,000 that I made over $250,000 ($300,000 minus $250,000 = $50,000). That's an additional $450 if you're trying to calculate it.

The guy in Scenario #2 who lives off stock sales. He pays no ACA tax.

Does anyone feel sorry that someone making $300,000 has to pay $450 to help finance health insurance for the poor?


The ACA tax that is pissing off the wealthy people (like the Koch Brothers, for example) is a 3.8% tax on non-payroll incomes over $250,000 per year. The guys in Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 still don't pay this 3.8% ACA tax. However, someone making $750,000 in capital gains (no payroll and no payroll tax) has to pay 3.8% of $500,000 (the amount over $250,000) which would be $9,500 on an income of $750,000. Do you feel sorry for them now?

See what I mean about this stuff giving people a migraine?

No, the social security fund is loaned to the Federal government by investing it in interest paying bonds. It is all bookkeeping entries rather than paper bonds, but there is a fund, and it is committed to paying social security claims.
It would be extremely rare to find someone living on capital gains because most investments pay an income and assets do not appreciate fast enough to produce gains with such regularity. Long term gains are taxed at a lower rate since some of the gain is just inflation. A person receiving only capital gains and/or investment income would pay no social securityt tax but then he would not collect social security on retirement. The higher tax on scenario 1 is only unfair if you think collecting the social security tax is unfair.

 

[Benvolio]

The social security trust fund is invested in US securities. See. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

 

[ballcaphair]

The social security trust fund is invested in US securities. See. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

And who do you suppose buys those treasury bonds?

 

[Benvolio]

And who do you suppose buys those treasury bonds?

You are not paying attention. The money is paid into the Social Security trust fund which then buys US bonds, so the trust funds are invested in US bonds. But it is all a bookkeeping entries.

 

[KaraBulut]

You are not paying attention. The money is paid into the Social Security trust fund which then buys US bonds, so the trust funds are invested in US bonds. But it is all a bookkeeping entries.

No, only the surplus (the difference between what is taken in and what is paid) is invested in securities. Most of the money coming in is paid out to meet current obligations, including payments to current SSI recipients. If this were anywhere other than government, it would be a Ponzi scheme.

In years when Social Security collects more in payroll taxes and other income than it pays in benefits and other expenses — as it has each year since 1984 — the Treasury invests the surplus in interest-bearing Treasury bonds and other Treasury securities. Social Security can redeem these bonds whenever needed to pay benefits. The balances in the trust funds thus provide legal authority to pay Social Security benefits when the Social Security program’s current income is insufficient by itself.

The Treasury always uses whatever cash is on hand — whether from Social Security contributions or other earmarked or non-earmarked sources — to meet its current obligations before engaging in additional borrowing from the public.

Money that the federal government borrows from the public or from Social Security is used to finance the ongoing operations of the government in the same way that money deposited in a bank is used to finance spending by consumers and businesses.

Source

The current Treasury Bonds that the Fund buys pay an annual interest rate of 1.8% which is not going to cover future obligations.

While Congress has been wasting time with non-essential legislation, redundant investigations and ineffective attempts to repeal existing legislation, the clock is ticking. In about 3 years, the amount of taxes coming in will be less than the amount of benefits paid out which means there will be NO investment because there will be no surplus. The existing bonds purchased with past surpluses will be completely redeemed in about 15 years.

But this has nothing to do with healthcare or the ACA, which is the topic of this thread.

 

[smokeshadow]

2 MINUTES

That's how long debate will be on the next attempt at repealing the PPACA

http://americablog.com/2017/09/graham-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-get-2-minutes-debate.html

Talk about having to pass a bill to see what's in it ! ! ! ! !

 

[ballcaphair]

If it were on the street, it would be a throwdown with smack talk that kills our loved ones.

 

[KaraBulut]

2 MINUTES

That's how long debate will be on the next attempt at repealing the PPACA

http://americablog.com/2017/09/graham-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-get-2-minutes-debate.html

Talk about having to pass a bill to see what's in it ! ! ! ! !

It's probably the worst example of legislative malpractice since the Teri Schiavo incident. It really shows the level of dysfunction that has taken over the Senate in the past two decades... and how it's time for Mitch McConnell to go.

 

[kallipolis]

it's time for Mitch McConnell to go.

Long....overdue......

 

[gsdx]

http://americablog.com/2017/09/graham-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-get-2-minutes-debate.html

I've tried opening it and reading it several times, but each time those stupid flashing bars stop me. Do they intentionally not want people to read their articles?

 

[smokeshadow]

this is going to be close

http://americablog.com/2017/09/obamacare-repeal-update-pre-existing-conditions.html

 

[Benvolio]

2 MINUTES

That's how long debate will be on the next attempt at repealing the PPACA

http://americablog.com/2017/09/graham-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-get-2-minutes-debate.html

Talk about having to pass a bill to see what's in it ! ! ! ! !

Yeah, yeah. All the democrats are against it no matter what. We get it. What is there to debate?

 

[KaraBulut]

...What is there to debate?

There's not much to debate because these Republican legislators have ensured that they will keep their salary and benefits when they are retired in the next election.

Here's a quote from Sen Grassley explaining the rationale for trying to pass something that will result in defunding state health and human service budgets and resulting in the loss of healthcare coverage for millions of Americans... which will lead to the failure of a large number of small rural hospitals that are dependent upon Medicaid and ACA plans.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/grassley-trump-health-care/index.html

When Iowa reporters asked Sen. Chuck Grassley on Wednesday about the attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare, his answer was remarkable and revealing.

"You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn't be considered," the Iowa Republican said. "But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That's pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill."

 

[JordanFrank]

There's not much to debate because these Republican legislators have ensured that they will keep their salary and benefits when they are retired in the next election.

Here's a quote from Sen Grassley explaining the rationale for trying to pass something that will result in defunding state health and human service budgets and resulting in the loss of healthcare coverage for millions of Americans... which will lead to the failure of a large number of small rural hospitals that are dependent upon Medicaid and ACA plans.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/grassley-trump-health-care/index.html

The other reason they are hell bent on fucking people over has to do with the fact repub donors were promised a tax break--something else these fart smellers campaigned on--a thick big juicy tax break that can only come at the expense of "repeal and (not) replace".

These guys are scum.

 

[ballcaphair]

There's not much to debate because these Republican legislators have ensured that they will keep their salary and benefits when they are retired in the next election.

Here's a quote from Sen Grassley explaining the rationale for trying to pass something that will result in defunding state health and human service budgets and resulting in the loss of healthcare coverage for millions of Americans... which will lead to the failure of a large number of small rural hospitals that are dependent upon Medicaid and ACA plans.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/grassley-trump-health-care/index.html

An observation from the Front Lines: Our clinic and ER have clients who are now afraid of treatment and especially follow-up care because of costs. If this does not keep our clinic afloat, Americans will be anxious until they die. Although we are Spartan because of ACA and tightening our belts. This is deadly.