magnamx-5

iTrader: (7)

As everyone and anyone knows once we are mandated to buy a product then the free market is broken and the corporations can join in collusion and be just barely above what the government minimum is. If you are going to mandate that we have health care role it into fica or something else and be done with it nothing pisses me off more than to be told i have to buy something that i have been fine without for the last 15 yrs. Just becouse everyone else sees it as a neccesity. Insurance is not insurance if it is mandatory its just a fancy tax paid to indivual business's and corporations. For some reason people got along just fine with out it for thousands of years before.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

IRS geared to collect taxes from Obamacare mandate

Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law - The Hill's Healthwatch

The American Spectator : The New Face of Health Care -- the IRS

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

First off Spare....I'm loving this debate with you.

Secondly, oh god did this thread ever expand while I didn't have time to properly respond. And I still owe Spare a response from his previous post.

It has the same net result. This is the problem with our tax system, our politicians are crafty ******* bastards.

Let me use another example. My state had our politicians advocating for a lottery system, with the proceeds from it going to the education fund. They promised increased funding, that everything and the kitchen sink would go to education, *if only it would pass*.

What they forgot to tell us is that they were going to remove all the other funding the education system got.

I long ago gave up the idea on a deduction or a penalty having any meaningful distinction. Every deduction I've gotten has always seemed to have been accompanied by a tax increase of some sort. Anything that politicians as a whole promise tax-wise always has some hidden catch. They *are* going to get money to offset that deduction no matter what.

This is not the same.

To be the same, it would have to be...oh...

Option 1: If you give me a highfive, I'll give you a bag of chips.

Option 2: I'm giving you a bag of chips, but if you don't highfive me, I'm taking it away.

I understand what you are saying, but it's an argument in semantics. The net result is the same either way - if I get highfived, you get a bag of chips.

It's also a great example of just how fucked up some of the taxation schemes can be. Look at Scrappy's analysis of Romney's tax plan for a great example - a lot of people are seeing a large tax increase from his plan (Note: I am *absolutely* not claiming a majority here, just merely a lot) based on Scrappy's analysis. Just because a politician may say something is a penalty or a deduction doesn't always make it so -

Okay. Can we agree on this much then, so I know where we are arguing from: There's no difference legally between forcing people to buy auto insurance and forcing them to buy health insurance? It's the underlying motives that we seem to be arguing about, not the concept of forcing someone to buy something from a private corporation (Which I've already admitted I hate, I'll note. If you have a better solution to the numerous problems both types of forced-insurance-purchasing tries to solve, I'm ALL ears!).

I completely agree with you here, I'd like to note, before I respond to the next part (I don't want someone on here taking my argument into something it's completely not.) I have also slightly mangled quoting you to put relevant parts in the relevant sections, so as to make responding easier.

This is the point where I disagree. As an example, if you take a trip to the emergency room and can't pay for it, *it does affect me*. It directly affects me, in fact!

I agree. However, you have to understand something - people lacked personal responsibility wrt auto insurance. We eventually started forcing people to buy auto insurance.

People lack personal responsibility when it comes to their health in America (...and no, this forum is a giant exception to that statement, so please don't distort it). Ultimately, this legislation tries to solve many problems in the health industry, whether it's a lack of personal responsibility, corporate abuse, or dozens of other things.

I don't know what else we could have done, except instead of creating legislation that was centrist-to-moderate right, creating legislation that was much more to the left. You can argue "But the better solution would have been to create NO legislation!", but due to politics, there was no way it would have happened. Both parties were making a huge deal about healthcare in the 2008 elections - legislation was coming no matter who won.

I suppose you could argue we could have shot all the politicians, but I don't know how particularly sound that solution would have been - although entertaining to speculate about.

I'm going to blow your mind for a moment here. For me, the best thing the supreme court could have ever done would have been to rule the individual mandate was severable - and to throw it out.

The individual mandate was a very minor part of the ACA/Obamacare - and a part that was added in due to Republicans throwing a shitfit over it.

You think I *don't* have a problem with the method? I've already said I hate it, Spare.

What I like about the ACA has nothing to do with the individual mandate crap. I *hate* the individual mandate, and wish it would have never been added. I accept it as a necessary evil, however, because of similar reasons of auto insurance.

I *hate* the gov't legislating any kind of personal responsibility. But there's a certain point where the gov't always has came up and legislated it for the country and/or state if people don't do it.

One good counter-example to this personal responsibility rant is look at Jason's ever-so-favorite Scuba example. It's *not* regulated, but people stepped up and took personal responsibility.

If you have some way that I don't that will get people to take personal responsibility, I'm all ears. People on this forum are *great* about it, but people on this forum represent such a tiny, miniscule portion of the US population it's depressing in a way. You have to remember we have a *huge* amount of people in the US that don't understand that if they keep shoveling pounds of food into their mouths, they are going to get fatter and fatter untill they kill themselves, and it's far larger than the amount of people that *can* take personal responsibility.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

topical:

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I don't know how you came up with that conclusion. I said I would see a ~3% increase of my effective taxable income rate. I also noted that only about 1/3 of tax filers itemize at all and that I have a higher-than-average level of deductions related to real estate.

While "a lot" of people might see what I would call a moderate to minor tax increase if they are in the same position as my household, there is no way - based on what's been reviewed in this thread - to reasonably make that assertion.

[Emphasis added]

Are you talking strictly in terms of trying to have all persons covered by insurance or health care and insurance reform in general?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Brainy, my primary interest was in your claimed bankrupting of states.

I've been unable to find any primary sources backing this claim, although I have found a lot of heavily partisan secondary and tertiary sources making this claim from an uncited primary source, and have been unable to verify any of the claims they have made via primary sources.


...? Did anyone here not expect that the IRS would have to hire more employees to enforce Obamacare?

This isn't a surprise to me Brainy, and is actually a great argument that I'm going to adopt in future anti-mandate arguments once we get actual hard numbers from the IRS as to the costs and employees.

The numbers your sources quote are inflated according to less partisan sources, but they are correct (Notably, they engage in substantial amounts of speculation and sensationalism within the article text, but the sentiment they express are correct in a general sense wrt the IRS). Obamacare creates more work for the IRS, the IRS has to hire more people, and more people cost more. This is no different than any other tax-related legislation the gov't has passed in any other administration.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

You'll note that I nowhere claimed a majority, or even a specific number Scrappy. My experience is that if you can find an example that affects you personally, it also affects a lot of other people. But I will happily rewrite if you want and cite the non-partisan Brookings study instead of citing you if you want - and that pretty clearly establishes the case for a majority.

I'm talking in the latter sense. Both parties were campaigning on health care reform, we were getting it no matter who was elected - R or D.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Again, I am very likely a minority of the minority (individual filers that itemize and have large real-estate related tax deductions). You cannot reasonably say, based on what I posted, that "a lot" of people would be affected in the same way that I would be, based on what I found with my situation. While it may be true, you have no way of knowing one way or another. [Edit: And, I am not sure if a 3% increase from 16 -> 19% effective taxable income rate qualifies as "a large tax increase."]

The Brookings Institute report I read had a number of holes and was, in my opinion, based on even less probable speculation than my own guesstimation.

I must be missing something in the way you are phrasing this. Are you saying you have not heard or read of any other options for health care and insurance reform other than those tied to individual mandates?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Are you trying to argue for a definition of "a lot" Scrappy?

'Cause that's what it sounds like to me. To me, a lot of people would number in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands - there's a reason I explicitly disclaimed majority there and made zero attempt whatsoever to try to claim it was going to be a majority of the US.

[Edit for Scrappy's edit] I would define a 3% absolute tax increase as a large tax increase period. For you, that's what Scrappy, 10k? I think most posters on here would reasonably define a 10k increase as "a large increase". I know I would personally be livid if someone increased my taxes by 10k while trying to claim they were *really* cutting them. (Edit) Or, if you want it in relative percentages, close to a 20% tax increase (15->18% would be an exact 20%). I think most people would reasonably say a double-digit tax increase is a large tax increase if speaking in percentage gains relative to tax.

What holes? Could you elaborate please?

Where did I say anything about mandates in that part? I said that both McCain and Obama were running with health care reform as a big part of their re-election campaign. Now, if you want me to expand substantially on that statement, I think McCain's plan was idiotic, foolish, and nothing more than an attempt to grab more power out of the hands of the states. I absolutely hate several parts of Obamacare - but I thought McCain's plan was a lot worse. Those were our choices in 2008 - McCain's plan or Obama's. Secondly, it sounds like you are trying to make me support the mandate - I've explicitly stated I hate the mandate and would have been very happy if the SC would have just declared it unconstitutional and severed it from Obamacare.

Seriously, Scrappy. My stance isn't *that* nuanced. Obamacare with all of the stuff I hate is better than no Obamacare. As a result, I view all the stuff I hate about Obamacare as a necessary evil (See: Mandate I've bitched about at length in this thread as one example). Obamacare is also better than McCaincare imo. We were going to get McCaincare or Obamacare based on what was happening in the '08 elections. As a result, I have things I would like to improve about Obamacare, and things that I don't like or even hate about it, but I would rather have it than not have it or have McCaincare.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I am saying that you have ZERO WAY OF KNOWING how many. It might be "a few" it might be "a lot" or it might be "a metric ****-ton of people, the likes of which I cannot fathom." You saying, based on what I posted a lot of people are going to see a large tax increase is like you saying I am wearing a blue shirt right now.

I might be, I might not be, but you have zero way of knowing.

I am probably in the Top 1% of Miataturbo.net but not the Top 1% of the USA. $10k is 3% of $333k taxable income (i.e. net of all exemptions and deductions). Per my earlier post, our household income is (well) under $250k.

I'll go through in more detail in another post, but it's based on the assumptions they make.


That helps me some. I am not trying to blaen you into posting something. My point of confusion came from you saying, "I don't know what else we could have done, except instead of creating legislation that was centrist-to-moderate right, creating legislation that was much more to the left."

It's probably me being too picky on word choice, but that read to me as though you had not heard any other reform ideas being proposed, which is now clear was not the case. I think what you are elaborating on with the above was that the Obamacare option was less crappy than the other options floated, not that there were no other options floated.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

You are correct. I made an error in that respect, and it's the error I always make: I assume people aren't stupid.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume people will do what is best for them tax-wise, which is what bit me in the *** there. People do tons of **** that aren't what is best for them, and point conceded.

I was incorrect in my napkin math. Your earlier post quoted a tax increase of 6k-10k for you - so I quoted the high end of your estimate because it's what I remembered you as saying your tax increase was (Fallible memory is fallible). But I'd still argue most posters would argue even 6k is a large tax increase, myself included.

If I miss it, please PM me when you do go through in detail. I'm actually rather interested in this topic.


I've heard lots of reform ideas. I could give you dozens that would be, IMO, superior to Obamacare.

We had two choices in '08 - Obamacare and McCaincare. I'd prefer Obamacare over McCaincare, and I would prefer *either* to no reform. I feel somewhat slighted in your assumption that I had heard of no other reform in a statement that implicitly noted our lack of choice for healthcare options (Remember, voters soundly rejected McCain in '08, so going right of an already centrist-to-moderate right plan wasn't an option).

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Blaen - For ****'s sake, just say: "You know what - you are right. Given the information discussed in your post, it might be reasonable to think a lot of people could be affected, but we have no way of knowing for sure."

It has nothing to do with people being stupid or not. In fact, I just glanced through a bunch of 1040s with household gross income ranging from just under $30k up to just under $300k. Only one had sales tax and real estated related itemized deductions anywhere close to mine as a percentage of their gross income.

A more realistic example might be:
* a married couple making $75k gross income
* real estate related deductions of 10% of GI (on the high side by my guess) = $7500
* charitable gifts of 5% of GI (again, on the high side unless they are deeply religious in which case it might be closer to 10%) = $3750
* assuming negligible taxable interest and no sales-tax related deductions
* assuming no children

Under the 2012 tax code, they would owe about $7500 in taxes on $55,500 taxable income (13% effective rate of TI). Under the assumptions I used for Romney's plan (20% reduction to each marginal bracket rate and elimination of real estate and sale tax deductions), they would owe...

... wait for it...

About $7500 $6000.


Unless they have deductions greater than $11,900, they (like about 67% of the USA) don't itemize. In other words, they would need more than about 16% of their gross income in deductions for changes in those deductions to have any effect on them at all because that's the amount of the standard deduction. [Edit: That percentage changes as your income goes up and down. The standard deduction is a static dollar amount, not a percentage.]


All that said, the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction would potentially hurt a portion of the population that is already struggling: those overleveraged on housing carrying costs (i.e. mortgage payment is a very high percentage of their income). There are pros and cons to that scenario, though.


You are absolutely correct. In this post, I did say my guesstimation of the tax changes vaguely outlined (dropping marginal rates by 20% per bracket and eliminating sales tax and real estate related deductions) would increase our household tax liability by about $6k.

You are also correct that I would consider a $6k increase in my taxes without an increase in income to be a lot. You were also right to say that, if I voted for Romney with the expectation of seeing a tax decrease and instead owed an extra $6k, I'd be pissed.

That's $6k less going to some combination of aggregate demand for the economy (i.e. consumer spending), our retirement savings and our charitable gifting.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

Romney in Jeans.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I thought I stated that you were correct, Scrappy? I had just done some quick napkin mental math and assumed a reasonable guess would be if 1/3rd of people in your income bracket were using deductions, it would be acceptable to guesstimate we'd see in the 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands affected. I was wrong - you are right in that we cannot know for sure, although I would sure argue it would be reasonable to think that it would be so.

Wait. Romney's plan doesn't even give them a tax cut? What?

Goddamnitsomuch....

Well, ****. Let me savor this moment, 'cause I doubt I'll ever hear this again from you in a tax discussion Scrappy.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Whoops! Copy-pasta error on my part. Their tax obligation went from ~$7500 to $6000 with an effective tax rate (of TI) dropping from 13% to 11%.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I come up with ~7000 based on your assumptions, Scrappy. Am I doing the math completely wrong? (55,500 + 7500 real estate deduction * .11)

(Edit) I have to be doing something wrong. At 13% and 55,500, I get ~7.2k in taxes, at 11% with the above criteria, I get ~7k in taxes. My napkin math has to be wrong. Busting out the trusty old ti-89 for this Scrappy

(Edit2) Goddamnit Scrappy. I apparently don't understand tax code. In your 13% example, my napkin math is close to being right. 11%, my napkin math is close to being right. But that's assuming the math I understand is right. What am I doing wrong?

Case 1: 55,500*.13
Case 2: (55,500+7500)*.11

I *think* these are the right equations. What am I doing wrong?

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Probably just rounding issues.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

If you can't deduct Real Estate with Romney, doesn't that alter the equation substantially? I.e., why is it 55,500 on both sides of the equation, Scrappy? The Romney side doesn't add up no matter how I try running the numbers, and I do trust my TI-89. (Unlike my Napkin Math, I'll note.)

(Edit) I'm not able to duplicate their numbers. Apparently, the equations I am using are wrong - but I have trouble believing I can't add. So I must misunderstand how deductions work. I also must misunderstand how percentages work, because I cannot get rhyme or reason from your posted numbers.

(Edit2) I have to be doing something wrong. I cannot duplicate those numbers unless I gave an approximate 13.5% tax rate to current numbers, and an approximate 9.5% tax rate under Romney. I don't understand why their math differs so much from mine.

(Edit3) There has to be something wrong with the numbers you've posted, Scrappy. I've been spending the past 15-20 minutes on trying to duplicate their results. I can't, unless I alter the numbers that they are giving me substantially. Considering my mathematical background, I am pretty confident I can add and subtract correctly, and do percentages correctly if I have done it this many times (Especially with a TI-89, that has never given me an incorrect result in over a decade). So either I am misunderstanding how taxes are calculated, which if I do (And I'm not denying that I could be wrong here mind you), they substantially differ from any standard mathematical model I've ever used, or their numbers are wrong.

(Edit4) Here are the numbers I get and get repeatably, Scrappy.

You have to go to decimals to see a difference statistically (I used no rounding), but the change in tax rate is between .3% and .4% or less between them Scrappy.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

You are probably being thrown off by my formatting. I'll look closer later.

You take either the total of itemized deductions or the standard deduction ($11,900), whichever is greater. I use an "IF()" formula in my spreadsheet.

[Edit: And the effective tax rate is calculated as a percentage of gross or taxable income after calculating taxes owed.]

Again, taxes are confusing.

If that doesn't clear it up, send me a PM and I will email you a spreadsheet tonight or tomorrow.