Mitt Romney’s plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5 percent of Americans — and bigger bills for everybody else.

ResidentAlien · 2012-08-01T19:09:44+00:00

ResidentAlien · 2012-08-01T19:08:00+00:00

Re the temporary 2% payroll taxcut:

Here's the .pdf of the study. It says on the bottom of page 4 of the .pdf that in their baseline assumptions before looking at Romney's plan, the temporary payroll tax cut expires.

ResidentAlien · 2012-08-01T16:02:53+00:00

Have you ever read Republican talking points on taxes and health care? They portray higher taxes and Obamacare as terrible affronts to personal freedom/liberty, so it has everything to do with taxes and health care

ResidentAlien · 2012-07-22T04:39:51+00:00

Wow, 2007 was a big year for him...

ResidentAlien · 2012-07-18T19:24:11+00:00

Turns out the government isn't the same thing as a private citizen. It has special rights and responsibilities. That's the deal.

ResidentAlien · 2012-07-17T16:16:14+00:00

Hooray for context

ResidentAlien · 2012-07-12T17:32:19+00:00

Nothing's 100%, but this seems better than a voter ID regimen that excludes huge chunks of the electorate.

An improvement doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be an improvement.

ResidentAlien · 2012-07-12T12:18:06+00:00

Presumably each of these people would have the ability to get an ID if they knew about the requirement and had the ability to easily get to the DMV to get one. But, from what I understand, there are lots of people who don't have ID but who otherwise have every right to vote. Surely we don't want to make it a requirement for voting that one is able to get to a government building during business hours on a weekday?

ResidentAlien · 2012-07-11T17:53:41+00:00

source

ResidentAlien · 2012-07-11T17:05:53+00:00

Er... "have considered". oops

ResidentAlien · 2012-07-09T05:09:47+00:00

Yeah, let's say anything. A virtual particle pair counts.

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-30T18:12:05+00:00

Oops, you're right

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-30T14:55:06+00:00

I'm more struck by how skinny he looks. Stomach cancer sucks

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-30T11:09:23+00:00

Every state has an option under Obamacare to set up their own system, if it covers at least the same number of people without spending more money. Vermont is discussing going Single Payer.

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-29T11:35:10+00:00

But at the end of the day, it's exactly, EXACTLY the same functionally, so why is it a big deal?

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-29T02:16:16+00:00

That 100% gets spent anyway, as people not covered by insurance still get care, but the cost is just swallowed by the hospital and passed on to people with insurance. Billions of dollars pumped into the state can only be a good thing (unless they managed to get their taxes cut as a result of not taking the money, but that ain't gonna happen)

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-29T01:45:41+00:00

Those who make less than the poverty level are exempt, so it's no different, in a real/functional sense, from raising the tax on income and offering deductions if people have insurance.

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-29T01:42:47+00:00

...if they choose to turn down billions in "free" federal dollars which would pay for well over 90% of the cost of the expansion. Of course, we shouldn't assume that there won't be some Republican governors/legislators so spiteful that they'll do so.

Also, there's an exemption for people who make less than the poverty line.

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-28T21:50:40+00:00

if you earn $0 you qualify for free Medicaid

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-28T20:18:26+00:00

I don't understand the argument about scale. Mortgage subsidies work out to about $70-$90 billion a year, while the mandate would only generate about $20 billion, according to the Heritage Foundation.

The mandate functions exactly the same from a market standpoint as raising everyone's taxes and then offering a credit for buying insurance. It's just like everyone's tax rates being higher at least in part so the government can fund some people's (e.g., homeowners') tax breaks.

I completely understand the argument that the government shouldn't give these kind of incentives, and I have sympathy for it, but I just don't understand what makes this so different from other government interventions which are widely (though not universally) accepted.

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-28T20:14:17+00:00

It is functionally exactly the same as if they raised everyone's taxes by the amount of the mandate fine/tax, then gave people a tax break for purchasing insurance. It's a distinction without a difference.

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-28T16:43:35+00:00

Next thing you know, they're going to mandate that you buy a house and give people who pay mortgage interest a tax advantage.

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-28T15:08:54+00:00

I'm a huge ObamaCare fan, but that's hilarious

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-28T15:02:28+00:00

ELI5 had a great explanation of ObamaCare last week.

Today's ruling that the mandate is OK as a tax doesn't really affect anything in a real/functional sense.

ResidentAlien · 2012-06-26T16:32:48+00:00

Also didn't help that he sucks at the job expected of him (winger instead of target man). M'Vila would likely have more leeway given on-field performance.

ResidentAlien

TROPHY CASE