Paul Ryan Believes President Trump will Support Medicare And SS Cuts To Balance Budget

Yes. I overly simplified the mechanics (I mentioned the deduction component earlier and you disliked how i phrased it so I went away from that). In short, your federal system also takes your provincial tax burden into consideration. They don't set the federal system independent from the provincial one

You keep saying the federal takes into account the burden of provincial taxes (show me your source) but it's simply not true. CRA runs income tax on both as independent, each on the gross income and each delivering their own deductions. The federal government does not take into account the income tax burden of provincial income tax and offset that by lower the taxable income. Abatement only happens in one province for obvious reasons.


You keep talking about wealth fleeing fear, which is not what I'm talking about.

Our states don't collect any federal income and they don't get a federal check back from SALT deductions.

We have 2 completely separate tax codes but they pay for the same program. State taxes and federal taxes both pay for the same program. Let's take Medicare, a federal program, States opt in and they pay a percentage while the fed pays another percentage. The state taxes pay for the state portion, the federal taxes pay for the federal portion - but it's the same federal program.

If the fed reduces their contribution, the state will have to pick up the slack with state taxes. Every state has to do this independently. So, State A's need is $100B and the states pay 60% while the fed pays 40% while State B's need is $50B with the same percentage allocation. So when the fed cuts its percentage (40 --> 30%), both states have to cover a greater percentage (60-->70%). Every state that has Medicaid is in the same boat. Every state with a school system is in the same boat. Whenever the fed cuts its percentage to these programs the state has to cover a greater percentage.

Now, because this is done on a national level, the fed isn't just affecting high tax states. Even low tax states will experience the same percentage increase in their financial burden. A state with no income tax will still have to cover a greater percentage of their Medicare costs, their education costs, etc. So, the extra money will have to come from those state residents, even if they don't have state taxes.

Now, normally you get a deduction for state taxes which fund your local portion of the programs and the fed funds their portion by taxing the remainder of your income. With the new proposal, you pay local taxes to cover the state portion of Medicare. But you don't get a deduction for it. You are now paying taxes on the money you spent to fund the state portion of the program. Plus you're still funding the federal portion of the program at a higher rate because you have lost a deduction. However, even though the federal government is taxing more of your money, the fed is cutting the program while you are technically paying more money to them.

This affects every single state the exact same way. Red and Blue. Because they are all partnered with the fed on Medicare, Medicaid, Education, infrastructure, etc. So, every state is going to see it's local costs go up and every resident of every state is going to be paying more in taxes while getting less from the federal government for it.

So, a red state will not want a bunch of people showing up from blue states because it means more people using infrastructure, more people using the school system. And since the fed is paying less money into those programs, all of the red states will have to cover a greater percentage of the programs for a greater number of people. The only person who wins is the fed - they take in more money (the tax revenue that used to be deducted) but contribute less to the system (by cutting their percentage contribution to the programs the revenue is funding).

That's simplified to a large degree.

I'm not denying what your saying -- I'm saying your system of federalism is messed up. Having a centralized system of medicade in which federal control and spilt funding doesn't work well because each state have completely different ideals of health care. Each state should take a more autonomous role in administration and payment of their social programs. Canada provides good example of this -- each province runs it own healthcare system (there is no national healthcare system in Canada but rather 10 seperate systems.

But as it relates to the states -- it's only a minority of people who will be impacted by getting rid of SALT deductions -- and while some of that top 10-15 percent will be paying more, some will be paying less due to income tax breaks overall.

So, yes, states will be impacted but what stops NY, Cali, etc from implementing a top rate of 20 percent to offset federal loss? Are you saying there's anything that road blocks that?
 
For a lot of them, I don't think it's even about who or what they're for, if you're talking about regular voters. It's what they're against. But what I wonder is how they get to that point, where their political preferences are entirely driven by hatred for half of the country.
It's really sad that some peoples politics is driven by hate versus striving for the greater good. I'm guessing for some it's about channeling negativity in their own lifes onto "others".
 
Why do you keep saying I am a previous ban? It's not true, and it's not an argument of any kind....
tenor.gif
<Dany07>
 
This is rather a surprising series of posts
... not one in agreement with Mr.Ryan here?

Without an adjustment and reduction in non-discretionary spending, is there really any hope on balancing the budget and getting the govt running at a more efficient running entity?

Reduction in gov't expenditure and liability on programs has always been the Republican agenda(correlates with smaller govt + larger private sector) but surely we realize that not all of these programs are as effective as we hoped them to be.

While it would be political suicide in one perspective; visiting and reducing non-discretionary spending is at least half of the equation to fixing thia country.
- the military is only 15% of the budget and aids in our international influence.
- the levels of fraud in these programs is a very significant issue.

I love my grams as much as you lot but changes must happen; not to even make it solvent, but at least to slow down its pace toward exhaustion and develop a long term strategy to achieve a healthier class of citizens and american lifestyle that doesn't result in so much chronic illness.

There are two sides to the equation gents revenue(taxation) AND Expenditure(govt spending).
 
This is rather a surprising series of posts
... not one in agreement with Mr.Ryan here?

Without an adjustment and reduction in non-discretionary spending, is there really any hope on balancing the budget and getting the govt running at a more efficient running entity?

Reduction in gov't expenditure and liability on programs has always been the Republican agenda(correlates with smaller govt + larger private sector) but surely we realize that not all of these programs are as effective as we hoped them to be.

While it would be political suicide in one perspective; visiting and reducing non-discretionary spending is at least half of the equation to fixing thia country.
- the military is only 15% of the budget and aids in our international influence.
- the levels of fraud in these programs is a very significant issue.

I love my grams as much as you lot but changes must happen; not to even make it solvent, but at least to slow down its pace toward exhaustion and develop a long term strategy to achieve a healthier class of citizens and american lifestyle that doesn't result in so much chronic illness.

There are two sides to the equation gents revenue(taxation) AND Expenditure(govt spending).

Source that fraud is a significant issue in those programs?
 
Source that fraud is a significant issue in those programs?

I've read earlier this year about 1 in every $10 in Medicare/Medicaid fraud and mispayments.
-https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/449172/entitlement-fraud-medicare-medicaid-sees-too-much-it

-https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/439919/medicaid-frauds-staggering-cost-140-billion
-https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21603078-why-thieves-love-americas-health-care-system-272-billion-swindle

There are processes and personnel placed in under recent initiatives to mitigated the issue but there is still quite a bit of money lost.

Regarding the original discussion:

I just can't see how people/the media compartmentalize the reporting of spending, ignoring non-discretionary programs and think this isn't where congress needs to focus.
-non-discretionary spending is the law that needs to be modified;
wars(OCO) only account for, at most, a fifth of military budget

-interest payments 6% of total federal budget.


The proliferation of obesity, ((il)legal)drug use, cigarette culture, etc., and resulting chronic diseases are a major health cost factor.

Look at this link for highlights on Medicare
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010203213.html

It has been a non-starter but non-discretionary spending must be cut as it is due for a significant increase in the upcoming decades.
 
hiya kpt018,

yep.

that's why i'm not worried that senior entitlements will be cut or privatized - just like i'm not worried that a woman's right to choose is going to eliminated - the GOP might nibble at the edges, but in four to eight years, the Democrats will just broaden the programs in tiny increments.

my parents are GOP to the core (though i don't consider them conservatives) but they'd flip to Blue before i could hit "post reply" if their entitlements were threatened, just like a huge majority of seniors.

this poll is from 2011, but i'd imagine that the numbers are pretty much the same today;

5dv5zsq94eaigjerc3gleg.gif


in the end, even conservative-tea party-freedom caucus folks discover their inner liberal when the rubber meets the road, though their path to enlightenment can seem confusing at times...

Govnt-Keep-Ur-Hands-of-my-Medicare.jpg


- IGIT
I hope you’re right. People like healthcare and they’re about to repeal the mandate and people don’t approve of the tax bill and yet they’re passing it. Point is the GOP has unpopular policy and has no problem passing it.

You may be right though, entitlements are a bridge too far in terms of the politics. Im not confident though. And small nibble at the edges can still do a lot of harm.
 
Back
Top