People bought health care policies before Obamacare, so it’s not like they’ll go out of business. They’ll just be less likely to participate in the exchanges.
The right has already said that they are going after Medicare funding. When that happens, it’s going to become increasingly difficult for seniors to find anybody to treat them. Caregivers are not required to accept Medicare patients. When Congress threatened to cut Medicare a few years ago, our doctor told us that their board of directors could possibly cut off care for seniors. If that happens, nobody will be able to get into an ER for an actual emergency, as it will be jammed not only with people who have been bounced by the mandate repeal, but by thousands of elderly folks.
While that makes for a great left-leaning soundbite (if not a quickly becoming passe and overused term/meme the left reverts to pretty much always), to make you’re point you’re going to have to show or give an example where the middle-class as a whole are about to be soaked.
Millions does not equal “all”. And in fact it only equals a couple of states. A couple of states that chose a sleazy way to cover their own coffers at the expense of the federal government and other non-sleazy seeking states.
A crap tactic, and one I’m glad is gone (if it survives the committee).
Starts out as most get cuts , the tax cuts are gradually reduced until they hit zero. At which point it becomes all.
Which you disputed.
Now, which states get special treatment?
No, the tax cuts are eliminated by then. You think it’s a good thing that 60% will pay more than if the tax cuts were never done is a good thing?
What break is only California getting?
Never itemized taxes. No opinion.
However, if the exemption is being removed, then that means a tax increase for those who used it before.
Interestingly, there is a large overlap between those states who you say cover their own coffers at the expense of the federal government and those states which are “donor states.” That is, for the most part the states with high SALT are also the states who receive less (and often way less) than $1.00 in federal spending in their state for each dollar they send to the federal government in taxes. A case can be made that the deductibility of SALT merely levels the playing field somewhat.
But I’m assuming upcoming administrations/congress are going to tweak things to suit their constituents needs by then (ie the middle class). Republicans are learning from the Democrats passing the buck. (an Obamacare reference).
The itemized tax deduction you apparently never take advantage of (assuming you live in a sleazy state that allows it).
You’re advocating raising taxes on people who have chosen representation that takes care of their own shit instead of relying on the federal government? How “conservative” of you.
Since California will be losing it along with other states that had it, I don’t see your point.
We never itemized because the standard and personal deductions were larger.
Right now, the cuts are set to end in 2025. If you have a cite that says otherwise, fucking link to it.
A good point, I agree, and one I would personally go along with on the surface. But it’s an argument that historically hasn’t held much traction (unless arguing this specific deduction). One for all, all for one mentality of the tax payers.
I can argue both sides of that I guess. What I can’t argue or get behind is the means in which these deductions were passed and used- ie ‘We’re raising our own state taxes because we spend so much, but hey, we’re going to offer a deduction on that tax by lowering the taxes you pay to the feds, so it’s a wash! Who could be against that? Nobody, that’s who!’
It’s a really sleazy politician move I totally disagree with.
I just want to say thank you to HeweyLogan for doing such a fine job in offering up examples and in generating concrete evidence with each post that leave no doubt as to where he stands and what kind of person he is.