Individual Mandate repealed in tax bill

[dude58677]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...gtime-gop-goal

[Madison320]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...gtime-gop-goal

That's going to make insurance premiums go up even faster. Get ready for universal health care, unless we go broke first and the dollar collapses.

[Zippyjuan]

Based on the Reconciliation Rules, only issues directly effecting tax dollars were supposed to be in the tax bill. This would not qualify- neither would the part allowing drilling for oil and minerals in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve but were allowed to be included in order to appease members and get them to vote for the bill- despite violating their own rules. They claimed that repealing the mandate would save them $300 billion and let them cut more corporate taxes in exchange.

[dude58677]

That's going to make insurance premiums go up even faster. Get ready for universal health care, unless we go broke first and the dollar collapses.

You seriously liked the mandate?

[William Tell]

Finally something big and good from team Red.

[CaptUSA]

Based on the Reconciliation Rules, only issues directly effecting tax dollars were supposed to be in the tax bill. This would not qualify-

Um, yes it would. John Roberts said so. The individual mandate is a tax.

[Anti Federalist]

Um, yes it would. John Roberts said so. The individual mandate is a tax.

Exactly right.

They declared it to be a tax, so therefore modification or elimination under tax legislation is perfectly legit.

[Anti Federalist]

Finally something big and good from team Red.

A stupid, sneaky, around the barn way of doing it, but yes.

I'll give them a "C".

Should have done what the $#@! they were elected to do months ago, and repealed the whole mess, miserable cum drunk sluts they are.

[Anti Federalist]

The ANWR thing is a dog and pony show.

Nobody is going to be spending any large amounts of money drilling or exploring in the arctic with oil prices where they are right now, and huge swaths of humanity being banned from owning ICE vehicles by government fiat.

No upside demand window.

[EBounding]

It's decent. I'm looking to save over 2 grand a year. Of course the tax cuts aren't permanent. They've kicked the can down the road so we can have a MAGA Christmas.

[angelatc]

Based on the Reconciliation Rules,

No reconciliation required. Same bill, both houses.

[Brian4Liberty]

Um, yes it would. John Roberts said so. The individual mandate is a tax.

Exactly right.

They declared it to be a tax, so therefore modification or elimination under tax legislation is perfectly legit.

"It's not a tax! It is a tax! It's whatever we want it to be, because we are Marxists!"

[Zippyjuan]

No reconciliation required. Same bill, both houses.

Reconciliation is the rule which allowed them to pass the tax bill with a simple majority. It was outlined in the last budget bill what any changes in the budget/ taxes could and could not do. It lets Congress "fix" a previously passed bill. The bill could only include items which directly effected spending and revenues. Any resulting deficit would not be able to exceed adding $1.5 trillion to the debt after ten years. That is why they have some of the tax cuts (mostly for individuals) expiring after nine years- if they were permanent, they would exceed the debt target for year ten.

The final bill is a "reconciled" bill where the House and Senate got together to iron out difference between their two plans- the final bill must be the exact same in both Houses. Even after they reconciled it, the Senate ruled that some parts (including the short name of the bill- the "The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," violated their rules so they had to change it (and a couple of other things). Since it was now no longer the exact same as the House bill, the House had to vote one more time before it could be sent to Trump. (they also changed part of Rubio's proposals)

But a senior Democratic aide said the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the provision of the bill with the short name violated an arcane Senate guideline known as the "Byrd rule," because changing the title from its original long name did not have a budgetary impact. The Senate bill must be Byrd-rule compliant in order to allow such legislation to be passed in the chamber with a simple majority.

[Cleaner44]

With all of his flaws and anti-liberty positions, I am glad that we have a president Trump leading the way for lower taxes.

Lower Taxes = Winning

I like it.

[Zippyjuan]

With all of his flaws and anti-liberty positions, I am glad that we have a president Trump leading the way for lower taxes.

Lower Taxes = Winning

I like it.

Half of taxpayers who filed owed no net income taxes last year. No tax cuts for them. And don't expect much in terms of pay raised from the corporate tax cuts- their heads admit they will give the money to share holders and CEOs instead. It will add to the debt without doing much for the average American. Good luck in getting any share of the $1.5 trillion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ward-investors

Trump's Tax Promises Undercut by CEO Plans to Help Investors

Major companies including Cisco Systems Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Coca-Cola Co. say they’ll turn over most gains from proposed corporate tax cuts to their shareholders, undercutting President Donald Trump’s promise that his plan will create jobs and boost wages for the middle class.

The president has held fast to his pledge even as top executives’ comments have run counter to it for months. Instead of hiring more workers or raising their pay, many companies say they’ll first increase dividends or buy back their own shares.

Robert Bradway, chief executive of Amgen Inc., said in an Oct. 25 earnings call that the company has been “actively returning capital in the form of growing dividend and buyback and I’d expect us to continue that.” Executives including Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, Pfizer Chief Financial Officer Frank D’Amelio and Cisco CFO Kelly Kramer have recently made similar statements.

“We’ll be able to get much more aggressive on the share buyback” after a tax cut, Kramer said in a Nov. 16 interview.

In the 1980's, corporate tax rates were cut from 50% to 40%. Profits started to rise and household income headed in the opposite direction.

[Madison320]

You seriously liked the mandate?

I'd rather have free market health care which means no mandate AND insurance companies can set prices as they wish and turn down customers as they wish. Since Obamacare has forced insurance companies to insure sick people we need the individual mandates to go with that. In other words the individual mandate and the insurance company mandate work as a pair. Removing the individual mandate and leaving the company mandate is WORSE than having both mandates. Ideally I'd rather remove both mandates but if we are forced to keep the company mandate then yes I prefer the individual mandate.

[Madison320]

With all of his flaws and anti-liberty positions, I am glad that we have a president Trump leading the way for lower taxes.

Lower Taxes = Winning

I like it.

I partially agree. I think for the economy as a whole the tax cuts are probably going to cause a dollar crash quicker than no tax cuts, since we're not cutting spending. We're just increasing the deficits. That being said for me personally I like the tax cuts because I can position myself for the dollar collapse. Basically I can avoid the dollar collapse but I can't avoid taxes.

Also I like lowering the top rate, I believe progressive taxation is the biggest injustice in the US (and most other countries). At least it's a little better now.

[jllundqu]

Based on the Reconciliation Rules, only issues directly effecting tax dollars were supposed to be in the tax bill. This would not qualify- neither would the part allowing drilling for oil and minerals in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve but were allowed to be included in order to appease members and get them to vote for the bill- despite violating their own rules. They claimed that repealing the mandate would save them $300 billion and let them cut more corporate taxes in exchange.

I'm sorry what $#@!ing universe do you live in? Did you not live thru the SCOTUS decision on the mandate where they specifically said IT IS A TAX!????????? Man sometimes your trolling is really sub-par

[fedupinmo]

I'm sorry what $#@!ing universe do you live in? Did you not live thru the SCOTUS decision on the mandate where they specifically said IT IS A TAX!????????? Man sometimes your trolling is really sub-par

The Congress passed a Penalty, claiming it wasn't a tax. The "President" signed it and said it was a Penalty, not a tax. SCOTUS, who is not the House of Representatives BTW, originated the tax after ruling that the Penalty was unconstitutional.
Also that twisted ass $#@! Roberts wrote claiming that it wasn't a direct tax should really make folks question what he has in his closets.
I see your point toward Zippy though, just pointing out the reality of it all.

[oyarde]

"It's not a tax! It is a tax! It's whatever we want it to be, because we are Marxists!"

Correct .

[pcosmar]

Half of taxpayers who filed owed no net income taxes last year. No tax cuts for them.

Oh come on Zippy,, I was hoping this new you would do better.

No income.. No tax owed..
no tax cut,, duh.

Lower tax is Lower Tax..

[Jan2017]

Um, yes it would. John Roberts said so. The individual mandate is a tax.

Exactly right.

They declared it to be a tax, so therefore modification or elimination under tax legislation is perfectly legit.

"It's not a tax! It is a tax! It's whatever we want it to be, because we are Marxists!"

Calling it a "tax" is what made it "constitutional" . . .




from 2012

". . . the government also argued that the individual mandate can be viewed as constitutional under Congress' powers of taxation."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/politi...tax/index.html

[CaptUSA]

Oh come on Zippy,, I was hoping this new you would do better.

No income.. No tax owed..
no tax cut,, duh.

Lower tax is Lower Tax..

Oh, if that were only true... Sadly, it isn't.

From what I've read, the Child Tax Credit is doubled. Since it is a "credit", you get that "back" whether or not you've paid anything in. And since the other "credits" were left intact, (student loan, medical expense, "American Opportunity" tax credit, education credits, etc.), If you have a dependent and pay no taxes, you will get an even bigger handout from the gubmint teat. And if you're too poor to buy health insurance, you won't be getting taxed ("fined") for not purchasing it.

So, if your poor and file, chances are you're getting a tax, uh, cut??? Well, not exactly sure what you call it, but you're getting more money.

[pcosmar]

Oh, if that were only true... Sadly, it isn't.

From what I've read, the Child Tax Credit is doubled. Since it is a "credit", you get that "back" whether or not you've paid anything in. And since the other "credits" were left intact, (student loan, medical expense, "American Opportunity" tax credit, education credits, etc.), If you have a dependent and pay no taxes, you will get an even bigger handout from the gubmint teat. And if you're too poor to buy health insurance, you won't be getting taxed ("fined") for not purchasing it.

So, if your poor and file, chances are you're getting a tax, uh, cut??? Well, not exactly sure what you call it, but you're getting more money.

You have to file an Income Tax Return.

To file an income tax return,, you must show some income..
NO Income=NO income tax,, no income tax return.

at lower income levels.. ALL income tax is returned.

Don't make it sound like it is a bunch of free money given away. it is less money being stolen.

[fcreature]

Oh, if that were only true... Sadly, it isn't.

From what I've read, the Child Tax Credit is doubled. Since it is a "credit", you get that "back" whether or not you've paid anything in. And since the other "credits" were left intact, (student loan, medical expense, "American Opportunity" tax credit, education credits, etc.), If you have a dependent and pay no taxes, you will get an even bigger handout from the gubmint teat. And if you're too poor to buy health insurance, you won't be getting taxed ("fined") for not purchasing it.

So, if your poor and file, chances are you're getting a tax, uh, cut??? Well, not exactly sure what you call it, but you're getting more money.

Some truth here.

Tax Credits (aka welfare) were increased. Tax deductions (get your money back) have been decreased. This tax plan is pretty $#@!ty. Yes, it's an improvement to what we have now but it really is a hugely blown opportunity.

It just so happens that I'll be in the 5% that actually sees a tax increase. Yay! That's what I get for being a single, white male who owns several properties in a high taxed blue state and who already itemizes.

[Jan2017]

Supreme Court might cringe at the issue created.

If there is no longer a mandate under Congress' "powers of taxation" . . .
then under what authority can Congress create a socialized market with payments to insurance cartels in the first place ?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[asurfaholic]

Out of curiosity, what's the percentage breakout between shareholders and CEOs?
And who exactly are the "Shareholders" - what percentage of shares in American Corporations are held by categories like:
- Mutual funds held by middle class Americans
- Retirement funds (Pensions, 401Ks, IRAs) held by middle class Americans, unions (teacher unions, civil service workers, etc) and the rare company that still provides pensions.

Personally, I can't stand corporations - I see them as state-created entities that pervert the free market (trading limited liability for double taxation of profit). But pragmatically, who are the evil people that benefit from corporate profits?

Well generally speaking you are wrong. The vast majority of corporations are small businesses started by entrepreneurs or tradesmen who are looking to protect their personal assets from business liabilities.

Also generally speaking, the IRS doesn’t have clear rules on the topic, but says that the shareholders should earn a fair (proportionate) wage. My accountant and CPA both advised me that I should be taking no less than 50% of the net income of my own corporation. If I want more, to take it in owner draws to avoid extra payroll taxes, and if I want less then I have to decrease profit.

I think it’s short sighted to call corporations state created entities that pervert free market. It’s corporations that drive the free market...and they are created by people, not the state...

[nobody's_hero]

Some truth here.

Tax Credits (aka welfare) were increased. Tax deductions (get your money back) have been decreased. This tax plan is pretty $#@!ty. Yes, it's an improvement to what we have now but it really is a hugely blown opportunity.

It just so happens that I'll be in the 5% that actually sees a tax increase. Yay! That's what I get for being a single, white male who owns several properties in a high taxed blue state and who already itemizes.

I hear you man. Single males got it bad.

[CCTelander]

Oh, if that were only true... Sadly, it isn't.

From what I've read, the Child Tax Credit is doubled. Since it is a "credit", you get that "back" whether or not you've paid anything in. And since the other "credits" were left intact, (student loan, medical expense, "American Opportunity" tax credit, education credits, etc.), If you have a dependent and pay no taxes, you will get an even bigger handout from the gubmint teat. And if you're too poor to buy health insurance, you won't be getting taxed ("fined") for not purchasing it.

So, if your poor and file, chances are you're getting a tax, uh, cut??? Well, not exactly sure what you call it, but you're getting more money.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to say in that case you'd get a bigger cut, of the taxes piad in by those of us who get raped every year by the tax man?