General US Tax Bill

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Belobog

First 100
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
759
1,445
The Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the tax overhaul Senate Republicans hope to pass this week, and like a previous analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), it found that the bill would increase the federal deficit by about $1.4 trillion over 10 years. The CBO also found that, compared to the JCT estimate, the bill would be worse for Americans earning less than $75,000, factoring in the changes to Medicaid, Medicare, and other health-related programs as well as zeroing out the Affordable Care Act individual mandate.

Under the CBO analysis, Americans earning up to $30,000 a year would be worse off by 2019, those earning $40,000 or less would take a hit by 2021, and Americans earning $75,000 or less would be worse off by 2027.


The amounts in the table are in millions: The table is saying, that people earning under $10,000 lose $8.7 billion as a group in 2025 under the bill, whereas people earning $1 million or more gain $15.8 billion as a group. It doesn’t tell us how much a typical family earning under $10,000 would lose, or how much a typical millionaire would gain, or which groups gain or lose more or less per person.

The table leaves out some factors that would make the Senate bill look worse. For instance, it doesn’t include the costs to upper-middle-class people who buy individual health insurance without a subsidy. Those people would face much higher premiums, because the individual mandate’s repeal would push healthy people off the insurance rolls. Because that change doesn’t affect federal spending, it doesn’t show up on the CBO ledger. The CBO also doesn’t attempt to estimate the effect of slashing the estate tax, a change that exclusively helps the ultrarich.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/11...estimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdf
 

Truck Party

TMMAC Addict
Mar 16, 2017
5,711
6,851
The Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the tax overhaul Senate Republicans hope to pass this week, and like a previous analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), it found that the bill would increase the federal deficit by about $1.4 trillion over 10 years. The CBO also found that, compared to the JCT estimate, the bill would be worse for Americans earning less than $75,000, factoring in the changes to Medicaid, Medicare, and other health-related programs as well as zeroing out the Affordable Care Act individual mandate.

Under the CBO analysis, Americans earning up to $30,000 a year would be worse off by 2019, those earning $40,000 or less would take a hit by 2021, and Americans earning $75,000 or less would be worse off by 2027.


The amounts in the table are in millions: The table is saying, that people earning under $10,000 lose $8.7 billion as a group in 2025 under the bill, whereas people earning $1 million or more gain $15.8 billion as a group. It doesn’t tell us how much a typical family earning under $10,000 would lose, or how much a typical millionaire would gain, or which groups gain or lose more or less per person.

The table leaves out some factors that would make the Senate bill look worse. For instance, it doesn’t include the costs to upper-middle-class people who buy individual health insurance without a subsidy. Those people would face much higher premiums, because the individual mandate’s repeal would push healthy people off the insurance rolls. Because that change doesn’t affect federal spending, it doesn’t show up on the CBO ledger. The CBO also doesn’t attempt to estimate the effect of slashing the estate tax, a change that exclusively helps the ultrarich.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/11...estimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdf
I don't think they have too great of a track records scoring these bills
 

KWingJitsu

ยาเม็ดสีแดงหรือสีฟ้ายา?
Nov 15, 2015
10,311
12,758
House saves me 3%
Senate saves me 4%

I'm in.
Now do some reasearch on how long that will last i.e. how many years.
Hint... try to compare in say 8 years from now.
 

KWingJitsu

ยาเม็ดสีแดงหรือสีฟ้ายา?
Nov 15, 2015
10,311
12,758
nobody can predict what's going to happen 8 years from now.
Yes they can. It's in the tax plan. That's why it's called a plan. If it passes, it becomes law, and very predictable.. Read my last post.
 

Belobog

First 100
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
759
1,445
I don't think they have too great of a track records scoring these bills
Most prognostication is both imperfect and biased. CBO is just imperfect, but more perfect than most.

This analysis of their their two and six year revenue forecasting details shows that are usually a bit optimistic on revenue.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...eports/50831-revenueforecasting-onecolumn.pdf

This analysis shows their forecast on the ACA. Was it dead on accurate? Nope. But they were as accurate as anyone could possibly ask for. We are talking about predicting the spending and health habits of 56 million people. Also judicial decisions, new legislation, and administrative actions caused significant changes in the costs of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions.
The CBO's Crystal Ball: How Well Did It Forecast the Effects of the Affordable Care Act?

If you have another 10 year analysis of this tax plan that you think is better, I'd like to see it.
 

KWingJitsu

ยาเม็ดสีแดงหรือสีฟ้ายา?
Nov 15, 2015
10,311
12,758
looks like more fuzzy math regarding the ACA. it's a trigger button the MSM likes to push.
So it's hard for you to understand simple predictive math?
Let me help you out here:




Now which bracket do you fall under, and what happens in 2025 aka "8 years from now"?
 

Truck Party

TMMAC Addict
Mar 16, 2017
5,711
6,851
Most prognostication is both imperfect and biased. CBO is just imperfect, but more perfect than most.

This analysis of their their two and six year revenue forecasting details shows that are usually a bit optimistic on revenue.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...eports/50831-revenueforecasting-onecolumn.pdf

This analysis shows their forecast on the ACA. Was it dead on accurate? Nope. But they were as accurate as anyone could possibly ask for. We are talking about predicting the spending and health habits of 56 million people. Also judicial decisions, new legislation, and administrative actions caused significant changes in the costs of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions.
The CBO's Crystal Ball: How Well Did It Forecast the Effects of the Affordable Care Act?

If you have another 10 year analysis of this tax plan that you think is better, I'd like to see it.
didn't Obama get to sell the bill pointing to the CBO saying it will cut premiums?
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
45,412
57,814
So it's hard for you to understand simple predictive math?
Let me help you out here:




Now which bracket do you fall under, and what happens in 2025 aka "8 years from now"?
Looks like it stays about the same.
 

Truck Party

TMMAC Addict
Mar 16, 2017
5,711
6,851
So it's hard for you to understand simple predictive math?
when there're 350 million variables you're trying to predict priorities & behaviors of, & that's not even counting what people outside the US will do, you'd be stupid to think that'd be accurate. predictive math based on Americans' behaviors & priorities remaining static, & the rate of things such as immigration & foreign investment as well, is useless. that's even ignoring another infinite amount of variables
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
45,412
57,814
That's why it's called a plan.
The best-laid plans of mice and men...

It's forecasting. Guesswork. Prognosticating.

Putting a neat little graph together doesn't make the numbers any more real.
 

Truck Party

TMMAC Addict
Mar 16, 2017
5,711
6,851
The best-laid plans of mice and men...

It's forecasting. Guesswork. Prognosticating.

Putting a neat little graph together doesn't make the numbers any more real.
it's static scoring of the future assuming a whole lot of variables stay the same, it's entirely stupid but it's good enough for govt work
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
45,412
57,814
The paragraph at the end of this link...

It’s worth noting one detail in the CBO analysis. The amount that the government will save by not subsidizing health-care costs for those earning less than $40,000 between now and 2025 is about $94.4 billion. Over that period, the government will be giving up an almost equivalent amount — about $91.7 billion — in tax cuts to those making at least $1 million a year.

One has nothing to do with the other. But I guess they got their "trigger" point in there. Taking from the poor and giving to the rich. I'm surprised the article didn't include the "pay their fair share" line.
 

Truck Party

TMMAC Addict
Mar 16, 2017
5,711
6,851
The paragraph at the end of this link...

It’s worth noting one detail in the CBO analysis. The amount that the government will save by not subsidizing health-care costs for those earning less than $40,000 between now and 2025 is about $94.4 billion. Over that period, the government will be giving up an almost equivalent amount — about $91.7 billion — in tax cuts to those making at least $1 million a year.

One has nothing to do with the other. But I guess they got their "trigger" point in there. Taking from the poor and giving to the rich. I'm surprised the article didn't include the "pay their fair share" line.
I wish we could get the CBO to predict what NFL skill players will do next week, we could hit the nuts in daily fantasy
 

SuperPig

Enjoy yourselves
Aug 7, 2015
30,979
51,737
So it's hard for you to understand simple predictive math?
Let me help you out here:




Now which bracket do you fall under, and what happens in 2025 aka "8 years from now"?
My blue dot gets a little smaller. Good timing too because that's right about the time I'll be buying the business.

And in 10 it gets nice and small. Like a tight vahjean
 

KWingJitsu

ยาเม็ดสีแดงหรือสีฟ้ายา?
Nov 15, 2015
10,311
12,758
The best-laid plans of mice and men...

It's forecasting. Guesswork. Prognosticating.

Putting a neat little graph together doesn't make the numbers any more real.
So ....... are you saying the tax plan is fake (news)?
If it's fake, why do you believe you are getting a 3-4% break?
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
45,412
57,814
So ....... are you saying the tax plan is fake (news)?
If it's fake, why do you believe you are getting a 3-4% break?
Based on the numbers they have laid out for next year, which is more believable than some predicted government screw job that might happen 8 years from now.

And I don't believe anything the government tells me. If they make doing taxes a simpler task, I'm all for it. If I save some money in the process it's a bonus.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
They cannot possibly explain the staggering amount tuition has risen. There's less paperwork than ever, more automated systems, more online courses than ever, more outlandish degrees people are willing to pay for than ever.

We are talking about a tuition that has quadrupled in cost here. It has all the signs of a bubble.

We have now 1.2 trillion give or take in student loan debts, talking about an epidemic, that is not simply due to the imaginary rising administrative costs. It's a business strategy, and it works. The cost will only rise, and it will keep on rising. The reason? No, not administrative costs, not cuts in funding, it is the ease we get these huge governemnt loans, the school makes monay, the government owns you, and makes money, everybody happy right? It has become a scam, a degree is like a UFC belt now.
Sorry to just notice this post. The rise in expenses doesn't quite track with a loosening of credit in the way you're painting in the vast majority of institutions. Below are some charts that demonstrate the decoupling of expenses at universities and aid.







Here we see how costs track with federal grant monies.



And here with federal loan monies



What you should be able to see from these charts is that price gouging is happening at the university level regardless of steady financial aid or in some cases decreases. I agree with you that it's largely business maneuvers and that there is an accompanying debt bubble, but the idea that government is playing an appreciable role in driving the spending and cost inflations simply isn't supported.
 

Yossarian

TMMAC Addict
Oct 25, 2015
13,489
19,127
but the idea that government is playing an appreciable role in driving the spending and cost inflations simply isn't supported.
Agreed, the active role of price grabbing is solely done by colleges. Financial aid by the government is merely abused, which creates the bubble. The state and local fundings went down from what seems the economic down turn, but now the schools were dependent on this money and doubled down to make up for the addiction. The graphs also show that the tutiotn more than tripled, and that in only two decades. It shows so clearly what madness we are dealing with.
 

Robbie Hart

All Biden Voters Are Mindless Sheep
Feb 13, 2015
49,704
50,709
Please stop with the taxation discussion.....i have to go over and over this subject every day all day and try to use this place as an escape