Exclusion of UNDERGraduate tuition remission from Federal income

[cbg]

...and may God have mercy on all our souls.

 

[LdiJ]

...and may God have mercy on all our souls.

Amen sister!

 

[Taxing Matters]

...and may God have mercy on all our souls.

The bill has been signed. And contrary to the alarms of some notable Democrats the Republic has not been “destroyed” (and yes, more than one critic has resorted to that very word in what I believe is extreme overreaction). Nor has, as some Republicans would claim, has our country suddenly entered an era of unprecedented growth and prosperity yet, either. The bill has been highly politicized, not surprising given the highly divided nature of our current politics. Sadly, we have reached a state where too often a policy is quickly deemed good or bad simply by the side that proposed it. It’s politics as sport; you don’t want the other team to win so anything it proposes must be shot down. The reality is likely somewhere between those two extremes of doom and eternal bliss.

The full effect of this bill remains to be seen and much depends, frankly, on what else Congress does going forward. The bill is neither all good nor all bad, as is the case with a lot of legislation. The bill contains provisions that I like and that I believe are sound tax policy. For just one example, I have long thought the deduction for state and local taxes was bad policy. That deduction amounts to a partial subsidy for the states, and the biggest subsidy ends up going the states that impose the highest taxes. That hardly encourages states to try to keep taxes low. It’s also unfair in that it punishes those persons living in low tax states by having their tax dollars subsidize those in high tax states.

On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasts that the bill will add significantly to the public debt, which is a very, very big concern. Thus, to avoid the burden of that, Congress will need to find expenses to cut to balance the effect of the tax cuts. They have pledged to do that, but it won’t be easy as any cuts will generate backlash from those affected by the cuts. Frankly neither party has shown much willingness to seriously tackle balancing the budget and I have little hope that we will see any realistic gain on that front anytime soon.

The bill may turn out to be a bad one. Only time will tell. But I think it’s way too early to let Chicken Little run loose with claims that the sky is falling. It hasn’t. At least not yet.

 

[Ohiogal]

The bill has been signed. And contrary to the alarms of some notable Democrats the Republic has not been “destroyed” (and yes, more than one critic has resorted to that very word in what I believe is extreme overreaction). Nor has, as some Republicans would claim, has our country suddenly entered an era of unprecedented growth and prosperity yet, either. The bill has been highly politicized, not surprising given the highly divided nature of our current politics. Sadly, we have reached a state where too often a policy is quickly deemed good or bad simply by the side that proposed it. It’s politics as sport; you don’t want the other team to win so anything it proposes must be shot down. The reality is likely somewhere between those two extremes of doom and eternal bliss.

The full effect of this bill remains to be seen and much depends, frankly, on what else Congress does going forward. The bill is neither all good nor all bad, as is the case with a lot of legislation. The bill contains provisions that I like and that I believe are sound tax policy. For just one example, I have long thought the deduction for state and local taxes was bad policy. That deduction amounts to a partial subsidy for the states, and the biggest subsidy ends up going the states that impose the highest taxes. That hardly encourages states to try to keep taxes low. It’s also unfair in that it punishes those persons living in low tax states by having their tax dollars subsidize those in high tax states.

On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasts that the bill will add significantly to the public debt, which is a very, very big concern. Thus, to avoid the burden of that, Congress will need to find expenses to cut to balance the effect of the tax cuts. They have pledged to do that, but it won’t be easy as any cuts will generate backlash from those affected by the cuts. Frankly neither party has shown much willingness to seriously tackle balancing the budget and I have little hope that we will see any realistic gain on that front anytime soon.

The bill may turn out to be a bad one. Only time will tell. But I think it’s way too early to let Chicken Little run loose with claims that the sky is falling. It hasn’t. At least not yet.

Given the significant tax savings to the rich and corporations (hey they will make jobs and trickle down) this says nothing good. The next cuts will be to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Getting rid of the ACA's individual mandate was not wise either. health insurance costs will increase immensely and people will go without insurance.

 

[LdiJ]

The one thing that I think that this bill absolutely does NOT do, is simplify anything at all. Yes, I do think that fewer people will itemize taxes due to the new standard deduction and reduced itemized deductions, but it really does not simplify anything.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Getting rid of the ACA's individual mandate was not wise either. health insurance costs will increase immensely and people will go without insurance.

I’m not sure that getting rid of the individual mandate will make a huge difference. What is not often understood about the individual mandate was that the penalty for failing to carry insurance could not be enforced or collected by the IRS. The statute expressly prohibited any criminal prosecution and expressly prohibited the IRS from collecting the penalty by filing notices of lien or by use of its levy power. Well, if the government cannot prosecute for the failure to have insurance and the IRS is prohibited from using any enforced collection measures to collect the penalty, what incentive is there to get the insurance? In short, the Democrats who enacted the individual mandate made the provision toothless from the very start; as a result calling it a “mandate” as they did was a bit deceptive. Some taxpayers may have bought into that deception and bought insurance fearing the wrath of the IRS if they did not do it. But IMO that kind of deception of the least informed of the public is quite contrary to what the Democrats generally claim to do in looking out for the least sophisticated, most vulnerable of the population.

I favored an individual mandate with real enforcement behind it. That is what you need to make a plan like Obamacare work. But since the Democrats didn’t do that when they enacted it (they wimped out fearing the backlash they knew would, and did, come), the removal of the “mandate” in this bill to me is simply acknowledging what already was the case: it was a mandate in name only.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The one thing that I think that this bill absolutely does NOT do, is simplify anything at all. Yes, I do think that fewer people will itemize taxes due to the new standard deduction and reduced itemized deductions, but it really does not simplify anything.

It simplifies things for a few people. But I agree it isn't much simplification. It is certainly very far short of the real simplification that politicians in both parties have long said they favor for individuals (though each side would approach it differently). The problem is that it’s far easier to say you want a simple tax code that could be filed using a postcard but far harder to actually enact the changes needed to make that reality. And given our complex society, it is probably not realistic to expect an income tax to be that simple. If Congress really wanted to make things simple, it might consider ditching the income tax altogether for some other kind of tax that would be simpler for the average American, like a value added tax (VAT), financial transactions tax, or something else in which the tax is collected without the need for individuals to have to file a return. Of course, there are drawbacks to each of those and those drawbacks may outweigh the simplification benefit.

 

[FlyingRon]

Given the significant tax savings to the rich and corporations (hey they will make jobs and trickle down) this says nothing good. The next cuts will be to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Getting rid of the ACA's individual mandate was not wise either. health insurance costs will increase immensely and people will go without insurance.

Trickle down has been shown NOT to work. In fact, several major corporations indicate they'll use the windfall to buy back stock (essentially, making the elite few richer).
As George HW Bush put it (and so lovely eludicated by Ben Stein) Something D-O-O Economics?

 

[LdiJ]

It simplifies things for a few people. But I agree it isn't much simplification. It is certainly very far short of the real simplification that politicians in both parties have long said they favor for individuals (though each side would approach it differently). The problem is that it’s far easier to say you want a simple tax code that could be filed using a postcard but far harder to actually enact the changes needed to make that reality. And given our complex society, it is probably not realistic to expect an income tax to be that simple. If Congress really wanted to make things simple, it might consider ditching the income tax altogether for some other kind of tax that would be simpler for the average American, like a value added tax (VAT), financial transactions tax, or something else in which the tax is collected without the need for individuals to have to file a return. Of course, there are drawbacks to each of those and those drawbacks may outweigh the simplification benefit.

I am not a fan of VAT. I have seen firsthand what it has done in Europe. It makes prices MUCH higher across the board. I might be in favor of a national sales tax on the retail level, with groceries, housing, medical expenses and utilities being exempt, but not a VAT.

However, any change that drastic would probably cause rioting across the country. With the Additional Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Credit a large segment of the people filing tax returns are used to seeing a very high net benefit from filing a tax return due to refundable credits. If that were suddenly taken away from them the reaction would be dramatic, as well it should be expected to be. There could be ways around that, similar to what Canada does with their version of the Child Tax Credit, but it still would likely cause widespread panic.

 

[Ohiogal]

I’m not sure that getting rid of the individual mandate will make a huge difference. What is not often understood about the individual mandate was that the penalty for failing to carry insurance could not be enforced or collected by the IRS. The statute expressly prohibited any criminal prosecution and expressly prohibited the IRS from collecting the penalty by filing notices of lien or by use of its levy power. Well, if the government cannot prosecute for the failure to have insurance and the IRS is prohibited from using any enforced collection measures to collect the penalty, what incentive is there to get the insurance? In short, the Democrats who enacted the individual mandate made the provision toothless from the very start; as a result calling it a “mandate” as they did was a bit deceptive. Some taxpayers may have bought into that deception and bought insurance fearing the wrath of the IRS if they did not do it. But IMO that kind of deception of the least informed of the public is quite contrary to what the Democrats generally claim to do in looking out for the least sophisticated, most vulnerable of the population.

I favored an individual mandate with real enforcement behind it. That is what you need to make a plan like Obamacare work. But since the Democrats didn’t do that when they enacted it (they wimped out fearing the backlash they knew would, and did, come), the removal of the “mandate” in this bill to me is simply acknowledging what already was the case: it was a mandate in name only.

The individual mandate is necessary in order to insure that costs are kept low. Higher risk insurance purchasers would be balanced out. OBAMACARE? Try using the ACA. Because quite frankly idiots think ACA is better than "Obamacare" due to ignorance and Republicans. The ACA was proposed by Democrats based on a local Republican plan. It was based upon Massachusetts law which was put in place by REPUBLICANS. But yeah, whatever. Truthfully, this country needs single payer. Like Canada. And yeah, CANADA works. My ex and others are more than willing to state that. And have. NUMEROUS times. But you have Paul Ryan and the rest of the Ayn Rand morons celebrating at killing people.

 

[Ohiogal]

Trickle down has been shown NOT to work. In fact, several major corporations indicate they'll use the windfall to buy back stock (essentially, making the elite few richer).
As George HW Bush put it (and so lovely eludicated by Ben Stein) Something D-O-O Economics?

I have words for it but I don't want to be banned. I know Trickle down does NOT work. It is BS on a huge scale. Prepare for a recession. It is coming.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Truthfully, this country needs single payer. Like Canada. And yeah, CANADA works.

Single payer systems have their own share of drawbacks. And I'm not sure most Americans would want those trade-offs. Moreover, we might not get what Canada has. I’ve experienced care under several European national health systems (all of which were single payer government provided health care) and did not like the care I received. Compared to American health care at the time (which was pre-ACA) it was noticeably lower quality. But hey, for the citizens of those countries they don't pay out of pocket for it. That's why they like it. And as most of them have never experienced health care outside their own country, they don’t really know how well or poorly it compares to others. Of course, they pay in the form of significantly higher taxes. There is no free lunch and no magic wand to wave to solve the health care issue. But the idea that single payer will automatically mean a better health care system, as some seem to think, is absurd. A lot depends on the details of it. And frankly, given what I've seen when the federal government delivers health care directly (as it would in some versions of a single payer system) I am not at all optimistic it would provide good care.

 

[HRZ]

Heck our various levels of government cannot even run an effective and efficient public school system ...and it seems the more money is spent per student the lower the likely outcome ...and if the first approach does not work..relable it and spend more money ....a single payor health system could only be worse...why do so many affluent foreigners come to Cleveland Hospital or to Park Ave dentists .

 

[Ohiogal]

Single payer systems have their own share of drawbacks. And I'm not sure most Americans would want those trade-offs. Moreover, we might not get what Canada has. I’ve experienced care under several European national health systems (all of which were single payer government provided health care) and did not like the care I received. Compared to American health care at the time (which was pre-ACA) it was noticeably lower quality. But hey, for the citizens of those countries they don't pay out of pocket for it. That's why they like it. And as most of them have never experienced health care outside their own country, they don’t really know how well or poorly it compares to others. Of course, they pay in the form of significantly higher taxes. There is no free lunch and no magic wand to wave to solve the health care issue. But the idea that single payer will automatically mean a better health care system, as some seem to think, is absurd. A lot depends on the details of it. And frankly, given what I've seen when the federal government delivers health care directly (as it would in some versions of a single payer system) I am not at all optimistic it would provide good care.

Those countries don't have the number of people dying due to lack of health care that this country has though. That is one benefit of single payer. Also those countries don't have people going bankrupt or having to choose between food and medicine. Like this country does.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Those countries don't have the number of people dying due to lack of health care that this country has though. That is one benefit of single payer. Also those countries don't have people going bankrupt or having to choose between food and medicine. Like this country does.

Certainly our health care system has its flaws that need to be remedied. But I am not convinced that a single payer system is necessarily the best remedy for the ills of our system. I believe based on my long experience in Washington dealing with the federal government that in particular we want to avoid a system in which the government directly controls and provides the healthcare. The federal civilian government is, by and large, not very efficient and not very effective at the things it does. While going that route might result in people not going bankrupt on medical bills, it would also likely significantly degrade the quality of care for the majority of Americans who today have health insurance. Before I would support the government taking over healthcare in that manner I would want the supporters to demonstrate that they can make government run efficiently and effectively, something that so far has eluded the abilities of both parties.