July 20, 201115 yr I'm so glad that I have someone like you to correct me I was told directly to my face that the reason my coverage took such a drastic change was because of the mandates of Obamacare. I distinctly remember Obama saying that his environmental agenda would cause electrical rates to skyrocket (one of the few times he told the truth) and a letter I got from MSD explaining their rate hike specifically mentioned NEW EPA regs. I'll give you an A+ for carrying Obama's water. I have no proof of this statement, but it would seem that blaming Obamacare is a scapegoat sent from heaven for health insurers.
July 20, 201115 yr First, let's keep in mind that this Gang of Six proposal is just that - a proposal from 3 Ds and 3 Rs. Secondly, that same proposal also drops income tax rates that currently range from 10% to 35% to 8% - 29%. Lastly, President Obama has not put forth his own plan much to the chagrin of lawmakers so he has not endorsed any specific plan. He did seem to indicate this plan was heading in the right direction and was bipartisan. What are they expecting to gain revenue-wise from eliminating the mortgage rate deduction vs. What are they expecting to lose in revenue through cutting the tax rates by the amount you mentioned? On the surface, it would seem to me like the one would negate the other.
July 20, 201115 yr AMT payers will slaughtered if this goes. And you do not have to make 250k to get with the unindexed AMT.... Is this thug gang of 6 going to the AMT?...of course not....AMT only allow mort and charitble deductions...
July 20, 201115 yr AMT payers will slaughtered if this goes. And you do not have to make 250k to get with the unindexed AMT.... Is this thug gang of 6 going to the AMT?...of course not....AMT only allow mort and charitble deductions... Thanks for that info BG. That helps clear up why they would consider elminating the mortgage interest deduction. Nevertheless, with the housing market and in particular mortgage industry being perhaps the most beleagured part of our economy, it seems to be a bad time to take that action.
July 20, 201115 yr The gang of six proposal is nothing but a tax hike on the middle class.. Nothing more...
July 20, 201115 yr Thanks for that info BG. That helps clear up why they would consider elminating the mortgage interest deduction. Nevertheless, with the housing market and in particular mortgage industry being perhaps the most beleagured part of our economy, it seems to be a bad time to take that action. First, sorry for the choppy entry - so much for posting from a phone on a plane. AMT take can kick in at a little over $150K of AGI. As a parallel tax system, it can drive additional taxes well over $4,000 year for AGIs up to $225,000 over what the tax would have been without AMT. AMT ignores local taxes, dependents and other very common deductions. The only deductions that still count are charity donations and mortgage interest. So you give the charity and buy a bigger house than you may have otherwise. It is interesting that the government seemed to think it was more important for you to deduct home mortgage and not dependents in the AMT. It seems they wanted to encourage home buying but not child bearing. Assuming you pay $1,000 a month in mortgage interest that would be $12,000 in deductions. In the 30% rate the impact of the deduction would be over $3,000. Assume the AMT adds over $2,000 in taxes and you see that this tweaking of the tax code creates impacts of over $400 a month from AMT/Mortgage for someone whose AGI is under the magic $250K threshold. $400 is an instate tuition or a car payment. These values would probably apply to anyone in the $180K AGI area. So these new taxes are not 'tax the rich' (over $250K). The reason is that there are not enough people above the magic $250K mark to make any impact if you tax them nominally more. So the politicians need to tax those making less that $250K. But, as noted many times, most people at the lower end already pay no taxes. So the target is defined - those making between $100K to $200K AGI. This is the 'sweet spot' target for higher taxes. They are all (D,R and Is) getting disgusting to listen to on this subject.
July 21, 201115 yr The gang of six proposal is nothing but a tax hike on the middle class.. Nothing more... First, we have no idea as to the specifics of the proposal. However, I must ask what assumptions you are making to make this declaration?
July 21, 201115 yr I don't have any political lines. I am open minded, look at facts and make decisions on what I see, hear and read. I don't allow pundits (on either side) looking for ratings to control my view and my thinking. The fact is my insurance costs and available plans get worse every year and this started long before Obama and Obamacare were here. I don't doubt that Obamacare will increase costs, especially early on. I also have no doubt that there needed to be some effort at change because my health insurance options have been getting worse annually for years. Whether Obamacare will be better or worse than the crap I have experienced over the past 10+ years, I am not sure but I do applaud someone trying something. When students were doing poorly, they claimed they were at least trying. My reply was that what if the person who was building your house did a poor job. What if he left you with unlevel floors, doors and windows that did not open or close properly and a roof that leaked, but he claimed that at least he tried? Sometimes it is better to do nothing than to try something that is not 100% sure of working. Obamacare has little chance of working because of its bloated bureaucracy with its thousands of pages of regulations.
July 21, 201115 yr If I go from 10% to 8%, yet on the other hand lose my mortgage interest deduction, I will personally experience a tax hike for about three years. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, so I can't be exact.
July 21, 201115 yr When students were doing poorly, they claimed they were at least trying. My reply was that what if the person who was building your house did a poor job. What if he left you with unlevel floors, doors and windows that did not open or close properly and a roof that leaked, but he claimed that at least he tried? Sometimes it is better to do nothing than to try something that is not 100% sure of working. Obamacare has little chance of working because of its bloated bureaucracy with its thousands of pages of regulations. And if the house was leaking all over the place would you tell the students to just let it keep leaking or would you tell them to try and fix it somehow? See that is the problem. Our healthcare system was a wreck. Costs have gone up double digits year after year after year. Benefits are shrinking. People who wanted coverage couldn't get it. The fact is a big reason Obama got elected was on this very issue. Healthcare reform was much needed. The house was leaking and no one was doing anything about it.
July 21, 201115 yr And if the house was leaking all over the place would you tell the students to just let it keep leaking or would you tell them to try and fix it somehow? Fair analogy, in so far as you do something to fix it & not allow the situation to deteriorate further. But the one thing you don't do is create bigger holes through which the water can leak, which is how I would analogize some of the things that have recently been done in Washington.
July 21, 201115 yr Fair analogy, in so far as you do something to fix it & not allow the situation to deteriorate further. But the one thing you don't do is create bigger holes through which the water can leak, which is how I would analogize some of the things that have recently been done in Washington. That may be true. I guess time will tell as far as that goes. All I said earlier was I applaud him for trying something. President Bush created a huge government bureaucracy with the Department of Homeland Security but unfortunately, it was necessary. I feel the same way about Obamacare. It was necessary. Let's tweak it and fix it if there are huge holes but some sort of reform was necessary.
July 21, 201115 yr That may be true. I guess time will tell as far as that goes. All I said earlier was I applaud him for trying something. President Bush created a huge government bureaucracy with the Department of Homeland Security but unfortunately, it was necessary. I feel the same way about Obamacare. It was necessary. Let's tweak it and fix it if there are huge holes but some sort of reform was necessary. Disagree about Obamacare being necessary, but agree that something needed to be done. Agree about Homeland Security, but Bush's other financial decisions earn him a spot alongside Obama as horrible economic Presidents IMO.
July 21, 201115 yr Disagree about Obamacare being necessary, but agree that something needed to be done. Agree about Homeland Security, but Bush's other financial decisions earn him a spot alongside Obama as horrible economic Presidents IMO. We're on the same page. I am not sure about Obamacare either but at least it is an effort at something. Bush was the worst president of my lifetime and Obama is working hard to surpass him. And I agree about the economic decisions. I just hope they all can find some middle ground to get through this latest debt/deficit crisis.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.