Biden/Harris Legislative/Policy Discussions - Now with a Republican House starting 2023

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I am curious if the stock buyback tax as well as some other things that are supposed to pay for it, will actually follow projections or not. 
 

they guess what it’ll raise but changes in behavior can mess that up…

The CBO seems to believe that this will actually reduce the national deficit over all. The ability to negotiate Medicare prices should result in quite a bit of savings.

 

a lot of times it seems like these kinda of bills get negative reception from the cbo and the politicians talk about how the cbo isn’t accurately reflecting the true economic impact of the bill, so I think the fact that the cbo says not only will it pay for itself but actively reduce the national debt to be a good thing.

Edited August 8, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Tell me three things specifically you disagree with on the bill and why?

 

And please link these things, to "Bring on more inflation".  

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Ball Security]

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, Tundra scout said:

Bring on more inflation. Woohoo 

 

 

 

[LD0506]

1 hour ago, Tundra scout said:

Bring on more inflation. Woohoo 

 

Well aren't you just adorable 😁

[tshile]

41 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The CBO seems to believe that this will actually reduce the national deficit over all. The ability to negotiate Medicare prices should result in quite a bit of savings.

 

a lot of times it seems like these kinda of bills get negative reception from the cbo and the politicians talk about how the cbo isn’t accurately reflecting the true economic impact of the bill, so I think the fact that the cbo says not only will it pay for itself but actively reduce the national debt to be a good thing.

 And adding @Larry

 

i agree the idea/process is good and the way to do it

 

I’m just pointing out projections of paying for itself doesn’t work out all the time. People change their behavior, especially when the behavior becomes taxed (stock buybacks). What will they do instead? Who knows but they’ll look for a way that isn’t taxed (or as much)

 

recent example: projections on how much the ACA would save us we’re in part based on people going to their primary care physician more often and especially instead of the ED, since they now have insurance.  But reports have shown that didn’t happen. So all that cost savings that were part of the projection - never actually happened. 

[The Evil Genius]

Any chance those numbers reflect people (correctly) choosing the ER over their primary because of covid? 

 

Or were the prepandemic projections just wrong?

Edited August 8, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Tell me three things specifically you disagree with on the bill and why?

 Not that you were talking to me but…

 

I disagree with the income cap on EV credits. If investing in that technology is so important then how much money you make shouldn’t be a factor in enticing someone to choose an EV when it comes time for a new vehicle 

 

the dems do this often. They tell us how vitally important something - then put an income cap on who gets it. They did the same with Covid relief. And their higher education plans. 
 

it’s logically inconsistent.

 

I’m not sure I have 2 more. The point about projections wasn’t something I “don’t like” it’s just a part of the process and worth keeping and eye on/pointing out. I’m not a fan of the carve out for the 15% minimum but I’m also not real familiar with the what and why on it. 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by tshile

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Any chance those numbers reflect people correctly choosing the ER over their primary because of covid? 
 

 

 

im talking about people not getting ahead of chronic issues by visiting their primary care physician more often (cause that was in the projected cost savings)

 

and people not going to the ER for things like an ear infection or rash (which people without insurance would do)

 

Every report I’ve seen since aca passed showed there was no statistically significant change in this behavior and therefore none of the projected savings used to justify the bill were (or are ever going to be) realized

 

 

now you can argue all day about whose fault that is and how to fix it.
 

one idea: both parties embrace aca and make it better, do a PSA on the issue and get people to go to their damn doctor. 
 

and that’s fine but the bottom line is they used these projections to justify (part of) the cost of the bill and those projections were 100% wrong. 
 

im just curious how these projections will pan out. And I think they’re worth keeping an eye on. Specifically anything that taxes wealthy elite for a specific behavior, people who have on their payroll people with the sole job of finding ways around it. 
 

wouldn’t be surprised at all if stock buybacks stop entirely and some other form of compensation is used. Making that entire stream of tax revenue evaporate. 

Wow my autocorrect ****ed all those posts. Sorry. I’ll proof read better next time. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by tshile

[CousinsCowgirl84]

27 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

Specifically anything that taxes wealthy elite for a specific behavior, people who have on their payroll people with the sole job of finding ways around it. 

Which is why that 15 percent minimum flat tax on corporations sounds like a good idea…

[Larry]

36 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Which is why that 15 percent minimum flat tax on corporations sounds like a good idea…

I've been a fan for some time of a "too big to fail tax". 
 

In my mind, it's applied to any corporation with more than (some huge number. A Billion?  Ten?) in gross revenue. Not profit. Sales. And it's a tax of (some small number. Less than 5%. Maybe 1%?) of gross revenues. Again, not profit. Sales. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Which is why that 15 percent minimum flat tax on corporations sounds like a good idea…

Right…

 

But it’s why a certain group got carved out of it. And it cost billions to make up for. 
 

now maybe they carve out makes sense - maybe they’re already paying some form of tax or something. I don’t yet understand it. But the point is what gets sold to the public and what gets signed winds up being different. 
 

 

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Any chance those numbers reflect people (correctly) choosing the ER over their primary because of covid? 

 

Or were the prepandemic projections just wrong?

 

No.  Much of the work was done before the pandemic and looks at non-emergency visits.

 

Part of the problem is not enough PCPs take medicaid so mediciad expansion left people with insurance that they can use at the ER but not a PCP.

 

http://www.policyprescriptions.org/how-the-aca-impacted-emergency-room-visits/

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, tshile said:

 

wouldn’t be surprised at all if stock buybacks stop entirely and some other form of compensation is used. Making that entire stream of tax revenue evaporate. 

1.  I agree with the projections being off because of a change in behavior, and I haven't looked at it in detail but it would have to be a heck of a tax to completely eliminate buy backs so i think that is unlikely.

 

2.  I believe buy backs are one of the worse things that we see currently in our system.  They increase wealth at the top and do very little to benefit long term growth and investment or lower income people (though not completely as it is not hard to argue that they do benefit large pensions funds.).  Ill take the trade of lower than expected earnings from this tax with the likelihood the money will go to something net more productive in our economy vs. the status quo.

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[TheDoyler23]

Biden signing outside with the shades on is no accident. Dark Brandon engaged. 

 

 

[gbear]

I note the expected revenue in the bill may not come from the tax on buy backs if there is a change in behavior.  However, there is also a part of the bill funding the IRS which has seen nothing but cuts recently.  There is also the expectation more audits will result in more tax dollars from mistakes caught.  I would bet on increases in tax revenue in coming years, but they had no way to model that increase in revenue.  So, I believe that was left out of the CBO report 

[JCB]

[Llevron]

They have to be more than a little pissed that the Trump **** is killing the good press they deserve on these things. Kinda ****ty how that worked out. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Renegade7]

Dark Brandon t-shirts showing up in ebay. I mus have one...

 

Hail

[Cooked Crack]

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Here’s the EV models now eligible for the 7500 credit under the new bill.  And…DAMN, that Rivian looks good.

 

https://jalopnik.com/every-ev-that-qualifies-for-the-inflation-reduction-act-1849391274

Edited August 10, 2022 by TradeTheBeal!