Rep. Ryan (R-WI) unveiled his Roadmap for America this week. As anticipated the reactions have been predictable from the Left from scaring the elderly in believing their Medicare is going away, the rich will get all the breaks, and changes to SSN will keep it from those that are poor or disabled. Let's look at it and see where it really goes. Shortly after the Obama was elected President he commissioned a bipartisan group to tackle the deficit and propose a plan. While I did touch on the results and did not like all the things found within it, why has Obama backed away from it?
But I digress. Here are the high points, per the Roadmap, put forth by Rep. Ryan(http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Roadmap2Final2.pdf):
Health Care
Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for
families – to purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if
they move or change jobs.
Establishes transparency in health care price and quality data, so this
critical information is readily available before an individual needs health
services.
Modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by
reforming high-risk pools, giving States maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. Allows
Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of options by using
the tax credit to purchase high-quality care.
Medicare
Preserves the existing Medicare program for those 55 or older.
For those currently under 55 – as they become Medicare-eligible –
creates a Medicare payment averaging $11,000 per year when fully
phased in. Adjusts the payment for inflation, and pegs it to income, with
low-income individuals receiving greater support. Provides risk
adjustment, so those with greater medical needs receive a higher
payment.
In addition to the Medicare payment, establishes and fully funds Medical
Savings Accounts [MSAs] for low-income beneficiaries (to cover out-ofpocket costs), while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of
income, to set up tax-free MSAs.
Makes Medicare permanently solvent, based on Congressional Budget
Office [CBO] estimates and consultation with the Office of the Actuary
of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Social Security
Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.
Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their
current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to
the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees. Includes a
property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a
guarantee that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their
accounts, even after inflation.
Makes the program permanently solvent, according to the CBO, by
combining a more realistic measure of growth in Social Security’s initial
benefits, with a gradual, modest increase in the retirement age, consistent
with Americans’ improving lifespans.
Tax Reform
Provides taxpayers a choice of how to pay their income taxes – through
existing law, or through a highly simplified income tax system that fits
on a postcard with just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions,
credits, or exclusions (except the health care tax credit).
Simplifies tax rates to 10 percent on income up to $100,000 for joint
filers, and $50,000 for single filers; and 25 percent on taxable income
above these amounts. Also includes a generous standard deduction and
personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).
Eliminates the alternative minimum tax [AMT].
Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and
dividends; also eliminates the death tax.
Replaces the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the
industrialized world – with a border-adjustable business consumption tax
of 8.5 percent. This new rate is roughly half that of the rest of the
industrialized world.
So where in here does Rep. Ryan look to take SSN and Medicare away from the elderly? How are the rich getting rich?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's funny how you bullet point what you want to show your bias,but will claim no bias.....
ReplyDeleteNo health insurance plan is worthy,until we practice full on socialized healthcare,(Like every other industrialized country)
And did you not hear the News of how a couple of our LARGEST (G.E and Exxon Mobile) get off without paying taxes,and got BILLIONS BACK?????
I see why you have zero comments,you are just so full of it bro,that people are ignoring you....
Grow up man.....
Dnew -
ReplyDeleteDid you actually read the budget proposal? For if you had you would have noticed the bullet points above are not picked out for bias; rather they are word for word as Rep. Ryan lays out in his plan.
I point them out in the blog post because you have people like, DNC Chairwoman and Rep. Pelosi, saying that the proposal by Rep. Ryan will hurt the poor, strip SSN and Medicare from the elderly, and restrict access for the poor to health insurance. Now, I did see a quote where President Obama said he actually read all 87 pages.
Again I ask, can anyone show me where in the proposal that all these assertions by the Left are taking place?
I did see the news that GE reported paying effective tax rate of 0. I did not hear about Exxon Mobile. Yet, both of these companies employee thousands of people. How many people do those that pay no income tax and get returns larger than taxes they paid in create?
So, let me end with my original question Dnew - did you actually read the budget plan?
Here's my problem with Rep Ryan's plan, and it's nitpicking I know. Ryan's plan includes initial placeholders for higher revenue than the president's budget provided, and the President's placeholders were determined by the nonpartisan CBO to which Ryan had access.
ReplyDeleteSo in order to make his plan hit the targets required to be viable, he effectively put in numbers that are make believe.
And this is the guy who is supposed to be a financial guru by Washington standards.
But let me ask you this - if you put together a household budget, and your inflows(income) isn't enough to pay for the outflows (expenses) can you just plug in a new inflow number to make it balance and call it a day? Or do you have to actually make the hard decisions to make your household budget viable and balanced?
I support Ryan's intent, and I applaud his willingness to attack big projects like Medicare/Medicaid. But let's do it with real numbers, and not blow smoke up the american people's arse with made up math.
"I did see the news that GE reported paying effective tax rate of 0."
Ok, this rubs me the wrong way, in A BIG WAY!
You are completely wrong with that statement. GE paid a tax rate of -24% because not only did they pay no taxes, they got a 3.4BILLION dollar tax refund.
I don't give a shit how many people they employ, taking personal income tax contributions and paying them to a corporation that earned 14BILLION last year is an obscenity with our current financial crisis.
But what bothers me is that you are defending it. That leads me to believe one of two things.
A) You don't understand the facts, but were told them by someone else and are merely repeating them. (bad but not horrible)
B) You are trying to defend this because you actually support crony capitalism.
But here's the thing. If we're going to go down this road as you appear to be supporting, why not just do away with government and put corporations in charge - paying our taxes to them? Wouldn't that be better by your assertion, since after all, corporations are the people that create jobs and wealth? Why not reward them with our taxes too instead of paying our taxes to the inefficient government which is only going to turn around and pay our taxes to corporations?
Just to be clear, you appear to be supporting option B. And that's more than a bit disturbing.
Truman
ReplyDeletePlease point out where Ryan put in make believe numbers. I have been waiting for a CBO report to come out. They did offer a report to Rep. Ryan back in January of last year though. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf).
I agree that when putting a budget together that we cannot just add in number to call it balanced if the numbers are not backed up by actual inflows or outflows. The CBO has stated that we cannot sustain spending over 20% of GDP when we average only 18% of GDP in tax revenue.
I am not defending GE or any other corporation for not paying in taxes then getting a refund. I am simply comparing them to the millions of Americans that fall in the exact same boat. Those Americans that receive refunds greater than the money they put into the system. My comparision was that at least GE and Exxon are employing people - who in turn pay in taxes on money earned although some may be getting returns greater than taxes contributed.
This should be an alarm bell for people on all sides of the issue. We need to simplify the tax code. I have laid out several ideas in past blog posting as well. It is time for a flat tax that eliminates all tax credits and deductions. This will eliminate the need to file a tax return as well.
I want to agree with Trumans points...however, I need to point out that Ryans plan is not effective for those who are 55 and up.
ReplyDeleteNow who exactly is the main voting block in this country?
Why can't he make it fair all the way around?
This is a point that few people ever make explicitly: today's retirees aren't merely getting benefits that they've paid for their entire lives. They're drawing way, way more from Medicare than they ever put into it. To make this concrete, here's an estimate from the Urban Institute of how much a single man who retired last year will get in lifetime Medicare payments. (All of this has been adjusted for inflation.)
http://www.urban.org/publications/412281.html
Most retirees are going to get three times more out of Medicare than they ever pay in. So if it's really true that everyone needs to sacrifice, then why should current retirees, who are getting such a sweet deal from the rest of us, be excluded from the pain?
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteSince you agree with Truman, can you answer the question I posed above?
You are correct that today's retirees are getting, for the most part, more bang for they dollar then they put in. That being said, I don't see that we can just yank the rug out since many of these retirees gave up their savings in lei of SSN and Medicare being there.
If we are to fix our budget real change needs to take place on the biggest part of our budgets. I am a bit perplexed why the military budget is not being addressed in the road map. Perhaps Rep. Ryan has kept that off the board for now as a chip he can use to bring common ground.
"Please point out where Ryan put in make believe numbers."
ReplyDeleteI had to hunt this down through Yahoo news, it was a national journal article. Read paragraph 9.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110405/pl_yblog_exclusive/the-gop-budget-proposals-big-cuts-bigger-questions?bcmt=63853091#mwpphu-comment-63853091
So I did some searching as to where the president gets his revenue placeholders - it's the CBO.
Why isn't Ryan using the CBO numbers would be my question?
"The CBO has stated that we cannot sustain spending over 20% of GDP when we average only 18% of GDP in tax revenue."
True, but that statement implies that our tax revenue will stay flat at 18%. It's an assumption being used in the analysis but tax revenue fluctuates with the economy. It's down now (that in fact is causing much of this crisis) it will go up again.
"Those Americans that receive refunds greater than the money they put into the system."
Viper, we both know that those people are rarities, sensationalized by the news media of this country.
For corporations that's not the case. A GAO study done in 2006, studied companies between 1998 and 2005 and found that 2/3 paid NO TAXES WHATSOEVER despite having a combined revenue stream of 2.5TRILLION.
While I'm no fan of citizens taking money out when they haven't contributed, I'm more disturbed by the flawed tax system that allows so many companies to not fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to this country that supports their efforts with the most productive workforce in the world.
"My comparision was that at least GE and Exxon are employing people - who in turn pay in taxes on money earned although some may be getting returns greater than taxes contributed."
So this excuses companies from paying taxes on profits? Great, I'll incorporate myself into a company and structure my compensation so that it's all tax deductible then avoid taxes altogether. Is that ok? If not, why is it ok for companies?
I do agree in fixing the tax code. But Ryan's plan targets most of the loopholes that the middle class use while leaving most if not all of the corporate tax loopholes. How is this a "good fix"?
Set the tax bracket for corporations at 18%, flat. Make it require a 2/3 majority of congress and full public disclosure with sponsors names attached to pass tax credits, breaks or deferrals in legislation.
I would advocate doing the same for citizens as well.
Don't get me wrong, I like that Ryan took a HUGE step into the untouchable territory that is Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. I applaud him for that and don't want to get hung up on these relatively minor details.
At least he's gone where no one else was willing to go. Heck, even his own party is distancing themselves from his proposal, so that makes me think it's got some legs.
I still would prefer the president called both parties bluffs on spending cuts by supporting his own debt commissions report IN TOTAL.
That would be leadership. This bickering over planned parenthood funding is ridiculous. And a government shutdown because of that fact should fall on the GOP's and Tea Parties shoulders.
And I agree, why the pentagon's budget appears to be off the table in all these discussions is beyond understanding. EVERYTHING should be on the table.
But using this process to test ideological purity instead of pushing for compromise and reasonableness makes me wonder why we're doing it at all then.
And Anon poses a great question.
Why are baby boomers being excluded from the pain. This topic makes me incensed. Baby boomers are going to take more out of the government coffers over their lifetimes than any other group in history....far more than they ever paid in.
They deserve to feel the bite of their excess.
Truman
ReplyDeleteI am on the small screen so I will not be able to read your link until I get back to the laptop. That being said, I did want to comment on the revenue as percent of GDP...according to the CBO historically the revenue as a percent of GDP has fallen between 16-19 percent.
Viper,
ReplyDeleteAre you aware that Ryan's budget, as part of it's revenue generation projections, makes the assumption that unemployment will reach 2.8%?
The US has NEVER seen a 2.8% unemployment rate. Rates of ~4-6% are considered statuatory.
The more I read about his budget, the less I'm inclined to side with it.
From what I can tell, he tries to balance the budget completely through cuts, without any revenue improvement other than his rather outlandish projections for growth.
Why can't we talk about taxes on rich for example? Taxes on the rich were 3% higher in the 1990's, not including capital gains taxes which were significantly higher still, and the 1990's were one of the most prosperous in US history.
How can we equate lower taxes on the rich to prosperity for all? Please show me statistical data that supports the assertion you and others have made that lower taxes on corporations/rich means more jobs? I have yet to see a politician support that claim with actual, verifiable facts. Anecdotal evidence leads me to believe the opposite is true. Or at the very least, that the two are not directly correlative at all.
Forgive my ignorance - but if we had a flat tax, how would the rich be taxed less? We are talking about eliminating all the crazy deductions, that really benefit the rich anyway - so then how is it lower taxes, when 10% of their income is a LOT more than 10% of a low income household.
ReplyDeleteAnd - wasn't his proposal suggesting 25% for higher incomes? Add to that the removal of deductions, and I think you'd end up getting more money from them that way, no? Or am I misunderstanding this completely? (very possible).
Viper,
ReplyDeleteThere is not much that I like about this budget plan...however, instead of pointing out why, I am going to praise the man for starting something.
You know well that liberals and progressives have been attacking his budget relentlessly, but have offered nothing solid of their own.
If Rep Ryan can be understanding to the issues raised by his plan, and meet in the middle to what others can put out, we might have solutions that work instead of partisan riling.
Truman - Ryan has asked the CBO to score the budget plan but the CBO said it cannot, at least as of yesterday, since the budget is not in legislative form. So once he can get it written in that form they will be able to score it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that our tax system needs an overhaul - which is one reason I favor the flat tax without deductions or tax credits. That same system can apply to both individuals and corporations. I don't like that individuals or corporations get back more money then they pay in taxes - I don't think it's sensitionalized by the media - but the simple fact is that at least corporations provide jobs where individuals that are getting money back or not paying any taxes - nearly the majority of Americans (around 45%).
As for setting the flat tax rate for corporations - we can do that - but we must abolish any current and future tax credits, breaks, or deferrals.
I'd like to see, even though I don't agree with the entire report, the President implement the Debt Commissions recommendations. Then again if he did, he'd be going against some of his biggest donors.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteWhy are you not going to point out why you don't like Rep. Ryan's budget plan? What are some things that Rep. Ryan should be looking to meet in the middle on?
The kicker is that Democrats or the Lame Duck session should have done this last year...
Ted
ReplyDeleteThe trouble many have with the flat tax is because it would require everyone to participate in paying taxes without getting all or most of their tax debt back. Let's all share in the pain of the overspending that our elected officials have done and our continual reliance on Uncle Sam to cure all of ills and remove responsibility from our vocabulary.
OK...lets start with the Medicare change which is the most popular subject in this debate.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all..you do realize that prior to the institution Medicare, 26% of seinors were at the poverty level.
Now Ryans plan is really a voucher. He says it isn't, but come on...if it looks like a voucher, walks like a voucher, you get the idea
Because the voucher amount would increase at an arbitrary rate, millions of beneficiaries would bear the risks of more rapid medical cost growth, either through higher premiums or through weaker coverage. No effective social insurance system would impose these burdens on the aged or the disabled; it presents a giant cut to middle class Americans. Privatization also makes little sense when you consider that Medicare’s rate of growth has been historically lower than the private system.
The traditional Medicare program guarantees the elderly a series of rights to specific benefits and protections. Abolishing that program would eliminate those rights. If health-care cost growth exceeded the capped growth rate for “premium support” and the benefits eroded, it would no longer be the government’s responsibility.
The focus of reform should be on controlling the total costs of health care, not just the costs to the government. The traditional Medicare program has served as a valuable platform for introducing methods of cost containment that have spread more widely, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 sets in motion new pilot programs for bundling payment and value-based purchasing that offer promise as general means of cost restraint. Congressman Ryan’s plan is just a way of getting the government off the hook.
What is wrong with phasing out Medicare and Medicaid? These type of programs should be bought on the private market. Government should not be in the business. The trouble with these so called safety nets is that people become dependent and think they are entitled to it. The fact is that the original intent was not an entitlement program.
ReplyDeleteIf insurance companies had to compete for our business then it would bring down premiums for the different class groupings. As we witness with anything the government is involved in. There is never an incentive to reduce costs.
"The trouble many have with the flat tax is because it would require everyone to participate in paying taxes without getting all or most of their tax debt back."
ReplyDeleteThat's more than a bit disingenuous there Viper.
The reason most people don't like flat taxes is that it amounts to a massive tax cut on the rich while raising the taxes on the poor - i.e. it's regressive.
"The trouble with these so called safety nets is that people become dependent and think they are entitled to it."
You mean like the Tea Party? I can't tell you how many signs I saw at Tea party rallies that said "Don't touch my medicare" while the people were changing "no socialized medicine".
Their ignorance is only proven out by the irony of those two statements.
"The fact is that the original intent was not an entitlement program."
No, but what I take exception with is that Ryan's plan targets many of the programs the poor rely on while leaving programs that wealthier retiries (those who have lobbyists) might object to cuts in.
I'm all for cutting the deficit, but cutting it on the backs of the poor to keep from "hurting" the rich is where I take offense at his plans.
Well, that and the fact that he uses his "tax reform" to cut middle class loop holes while leaving the corporate tax code nearly intact.
The middle class is dying slowly in this country, and the idea that corporations are going to be our salvation (the mantra of the right) is so patently false it's absurd.
Corporations don't care about people, they care about investors. If you don't own stock, you're not their responsibility.
This is true for financial, regulatory or social interests.
Truman - again, forgive my ignorance. But how does a flat tax "lower taxes for the rich", and raise it for the poor? 10% is 10%, right? so if you make 10k, you pay 1k. If I make a million, I pay 100k. Big diff.
ReplyDeleteAdd to that - the proposal mentioned 25% for anyone making more than 50k, or any home making more than 100k. So - suddenly my million equates to 250k. huge diff.
Now - Even if it's at less than the current (was that 33%), if I can't deduct anything and actually have to pay that 250k, isn't that going to bring more money in, from my perspective?
What am I missing here?
Truman
ReplyDeleteThe only reason why people view it as a tax cut for the rich is because it cuts their nominal tax rate while not really changing their effective rate. Let's take the most well known of these people - Warren Buffet. Mr. Buffet paid, as it was reported last year, an effective rate of less than 15%. I believe 13% was the actual rate. So, please explain to me if we have a flat tax rate at 15% we are giving the rich a tax cut?
I agree with you that people, even the Tea Party goers, are saying no to medicare but that is because it is not being properly explained and distorted by the Left. As Rep. Ryan lays it would be phased out or altered from its current form for those younger than 55.
Yes, we need to close the tax loopholes for both corporate and individuals so change the code to reflect. The trouble is that Congress members will put to many extras on the bill that kill it. I really wish they'd enact a rule that no ryders can be added to fiscal legislation. That way we can have an up and down vote on the budget an other fiscal deals without having things like "Hate Crime" or "Don't ask, don't tell" added to the bills.
Truman
ReplyDeleteCorporations are beholden to their stakeholders to which just one is the shareholder. If Corporations do something that their employees or customers object to they will voice their displeasure by leaving employment or not buying the products.
Ted
ReplyDeleteYou are not missing anything. The Left distorts the flat tax debate by focusing on nominal tax rate and not the effective tax rate.
"Mr. Buffet paid, as it was reported last year, an effective rate of less than 15%. I believe 13% was the actual rate."
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you use Buffet as an example. Do you know what his income is? It's one thing to be worth 40billion, it's another to earn it. Having assets of 40Billion, does not mean you have a corresponding tax liability.
"The only reason why people view it as a tax cut for the rich is because it cuts their nominal tax rate while not really changing their effective rate."
Strange that you leave out capital gains from the discussion. I have yet to see a flat tax proposal that doesn't abolish capital gains tax.
So explain to me how doing away with the capital gains tax isn't a massive tax cut for the rich?
So I point out a fact and you try to use a tiny piece of the flat tax argument as rebuttal while either implicitly or explicitly leaving out the remainder that clearly proves my point and I'm distorting?
Either A) your grasp on the flat tax is limited to what you've been told or B) you are intentionally trying to be dishonest. I suspect it's A, but I'll leave it to you clarify.
"If Corporations do something that their employees or customers object to they will voice their displeasure by leaving employment or not buying the products."
Really? How are GE and BP doing lately? Exactly how are consumers punishing these companies?
Let's be honest, Ryan's budget is DOA. I give him credit for trying but it's not going anywhere.
Now the Gang of 6, that's a budget I'm interested in. If a group of 6 senators that includes the likes of Chambliss and Coburn and Warner and Durbin can come up with a compromise, I think it will be an interested and probably realistic proposal.
Because you can't have a tax discussion that is one-sided and Ryan's is one-sided. Increasing revenues must be part of that equation. Anyone who says otherwise isn't serious about deficit reduction.
Truman
ReplyDeleteI have given Mr Viper the reasons why the total destruction of Medicare would be a completely folly idea. I have outlined that the REAL problem is the enormous cost of healthcare itself, and to put older Americans who use healthcare the most, on plans primarily designed for those who are healthy is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of.
It's as if these people are so charged about free-markets that they forget how business actually works.
Medicare has been one of the most successful social programs of the 20th century. Why?
How do you think all of those hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, heart-care centers and the like got built. Medicare.
Who staffs all of those facilites? The professionals who have good paying jobs because of ---Medicare.
Who trains those people? I am hoping you get the idea.
Is Medicare some evil entitlement program destined to fail just because it is part of the government? No. It is failing because health insurance providers reimburse doctors and clinics pennies on the dollar and charge astronomical rates to corporations for their services. And they refuse to provide coverage to those sick people who really do need it the most. That means the less people who qualify actually are the ones who get the "free" care because they can't afford it and insurance companies who actually force a seriously watered down payment in turn force Medicare (which is forced to set a specific rate of reimbursement)get stuck paying the most.
Ryans plan just removes the government from the hook and subsidizes seinors to pay for their own care. Now vouchering for the plans that they would recieve would be a logisitical nightmare for the insurance company primarily because they generally don't like covering people who need healthcare the most...right? Who is going to set those costs? The reality is that these seinors are going to pay more for far less care.
But, Truman...you and I make valid points on this blog. I am willing a able to listen to all points of view if the facts are straight. But all I ever hear from the opposition are the symbolic arguments like "the government is just not supposed to do that sort of thing" and it really gets old.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYou realize that doctors are not mandated to accept Medicare patients. Plus, the reimbursement rate for Medicare is dictated by the Federal Government and not the health insurance companies dictating it. Take a look at this:
http://thomas.loc.gov/medicare/socsub.htm
Now, I don't think Rep. Ryan is looking to do away with Medicare; rather he is trying to phase it out so we can have more control over care in retirement.
Here is another example of why Medicare is not good for hospitals: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0
You say you will listen to valid points and with facts. Yet you back up not one of your assertions above. One of the local hospitals t is in financial trouble because the vast majority of their patients are Medicare patients.
Truman
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand the difference between net worth and income. I also know the difference between earned income and dividend payments. I have not left capital gains out of the discussion as the focus has been on income tax reform. Nor have I said or have I seen any flat tax conversation call for the abolishment of capital gains tax.
But let's go down this road. The current Capital Gains Tax is 15%. So, if the flat tax was set at 15% we'd be right in line with current tax code for capital gains. Or am I missing something?
I do agree with you that if Congress took Ryan's plan and combined it with the Debt Commission plan we'd have a real compromise and might actually get somewhere. Personally, I wished a Constitutional Amendment gets proposed that will require a balanced budget starting this year! Not balancing it in the future.
Whatever is done, no one can argue that spending 26% of GDP is unsustainable. Especially when the CBO has stated that the average income in percent GDP ranges from 16-19%. Which is were we are currently sitting so raising taxes will not achieve the real decisions required to balance the budget.
Viper, I really wanted to agree with you in this thread. I like the fact that Ryan took a step to the edge of the cliff and pushed the conversation. But some of your statements are so baseless they have to be challenged.
ReplyDeleteFirst off:
If medicaid/medicare were such unprofitable programs that no one wants to service because they can't make a living because of government controlled pricing, why do I see companies like Kaiser, UHC, BCBS all vying for these patients?
Second:
"Now, I don't think Rep. Ryan is looking to do away with Medicare; rather he is trying to phase it out so we can have more control over care in retirement."
That's incorrect to be honest. In truth, he merely limits the federal exposure to the programs costs by giving block grants to the states. If the states overrun these grants (which they will) then the state is on the hook.
The tax liability doesn't change, it's just the jurisdiction that pays it that does. This is the same BS Pawlenty pulled and claimed he didn't raise taxes, but property taxes skyrocketed under him as he passed on the liability to local jurisdictions. That's not governance, that's passing the buck.
Third:
"Nor have I said or have I seen any flat tax conversation call for the abolishment of capital gains tax."
Then you haven't been paying attention. Going all the way back to Forbes, who was one of the biggest and most vocal advocates of flat tax, capital gains tax ceases to exist. Capital gains are taxes at the same "flat" rate as all other taxable incomes. That's a tax cut on capital gains.
Fourth:
"The current Capital Gains Tax is 15%. So, if the flat tax was set at 15% we'd be right in line with current tax code for capital gains. Or am I missing something?"
Really, there's only one capital gains tax code? There aren't two, one for short-term and one for long-term?
Let's air the facts. Short term capital gains tax (the one most investors care about today) is 35%. Long term can be anywhere from 0% to 15%. It varies based upon where your ordinary income bracket falls. Given these facts, a flat tax would take short-term gains down from 35% to 15% for a reduction of 20 points or a 57% reduction in taxes paid.
"If medicaid/medicare were such unprofitable programs that no one wants to service because they can't make a living because of government controlled pricing, why do I see companies like Kaiser, UHC, BCBS all vying for these patients?"
ReplyDeleteI notice that all of the companies listed are health insurance companies and not clinics and hospitals. Not one doctore is in the list either. We are talking about oppossite sides of the coin. Of course the health insurance companies are vying for meidcare patients because of supplements. That doesn't change the pathetic reimbursement rate set by the government to hospitals and clinics.
As for the Flat Tax - you realize the current tax rate on Capital gains is 15%, right? And if the CBO reports that tax revenue ranges between 16-18% of GDP then set the flat tax rate there for all income and eliminate all deductions, tax credits and any other tax laden incentive or subsidy.
I understand there is short term capital gains and long term capital gains. If someone makes a quick buck, legally, why should they have to pay more? If we flatten it out and make it simplier it reduces the paper work thus saving more trees - ahhh..a green policy!!!!
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteDid you see this part as to why they did this trial: Mayo Clinic loses a substantial amount of money every year due to the reimbursement schedule under Medicare.