My emphasis. The GOPer "tax" bill screws sick poor people, in order to pass through the savings to rich people as tax cuts.As you requested, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation’s staff have analyzed the distributional effects of those changes in spending using income categories consistent with JCT’s analysis. In calendar year 2021, for example, those excluded amounts would total about $19 billion:
•$18 billion less spending for Medicaid,
•$4 billion less spending for cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments
•$1 billion less spending for the Basic Health Program (BHP)
•$4 billion more spending for Medicare because of changes in payments to hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients.
On average, federal spending allocated to people in tax-filing units with income less than $50,000 per year would be lower under the proposal than under CBO’s baseline projections throughout the next decade. ... That outcome would stem largely from the reduction in Medicaid spending allocated to them. The increase in spending allocated to higher-income people results from the allocation to them of part of the change in Medicare spending.
It's easy to call out the morals of a political party that stands by a candidate whose pursuit of juvenile girls got him 86'd from the local mall. But what's wrong the morals of politicians who loot people in need for those who have plenty?
1 comment:
The theory is what it always has been-- trickle down, which never amounts to much. If he had stuck to the corporate tax cuts, I'd have more feeling it might make a difference in jobs and paychecks (Yes, I am an optimist. Some companies that went overseas may come back if our corporate rate is the same as from where they went. Penalties for bringing products back might help encourage returns also, but doubt that could pass based on the public not liking more expensive products to buy. When individuals get tax cuts, unless it's in the lower and middle income, it doesn't make for more spending. The upper income and rich already are riding high-- some with guaranteed pensions with raises every year that nobody else will see. Tax cuts for them though don't usually make for more jobs-- unless it's maid services.
Not deducting state and local taxes from income for federal tax is something that I can see the logic of. Why should those in one state get a break on their share of supporting federal government? The problem is people figure out the home they can afford, etc. based on what they expect for income; so this is a harder hit on people in states like California or others with more state benefits. Middle income people often don't have a lot of wiggle room on the budget anyway. Constantly changing tax plans also make for a disincentive to invest as you never know what you'll need. I think in terms of taxes, we are screwed whatever happens. Given me what I've been hearing, not sure they will do anything of substance.
Post a Comment