HawkShack.com

This tax bill is the nicest to the middle, working class, and old I've seen in ages. No tax on overtime. No tax on tips. No tax on social security. Sheesh. Never seen tax breaks like this for working people.

We'll see what the hits are to Medicare/Medicaid. Those are some crazy tax cuts if they pass. Going to be more people working overtime now I would imagine. I work a lot of overtime in a year. I can't say this will make me too unhappy to pay less in taxes.

Nothing you just wrote is accurate.

c_hawkbob wrote:Nothing you just wrote is accurate.

It isn't passed yet, but not sure what you mean by not accurate. With the current bill, overtime pay will not count against taxable income at the end of the year. Tips the same. So it will count as a tax break at the end of the year, which will reduce taxable income by a substantial amount leading to lower paid taxes and larger tax returns.

But we'll wait until the bill passes to see if it as I said: one of the biggest tax benefits to the middle and working class in decades.

In its current form, it's huge for hourly workers and tip workers.

Not so great for clean energy industry.

It's great for the rich and great for big oil.

Very good for senior citizens on social security, though as Riverdog pointed out they will have to figure out how to keep social security funded.

Terrible for the deficit.

Terrible for people people on Medicaid or other government welfare systems.

As far as your statement, I'll see what the final bill looks like and analyze what's in it, not what either mouthpiece for a political party says is in it.

It’s pretty awful. Not sure how you see it being beneficial to the middle class. I’m disappointed in R Senators like Murkowski. Hopefully the house kills it, but I have no faith anymore.

Aseahawkfan wrote:This tax bill is the nicest to the middle, working class, and old I've seen in ages. No tax on overtime. No tax on tips. No tax on social security. Sheesh. Never seen tax breaks like this for working people.

We'll see what the hits are to Medicare/Medicaid. Those are some crazy tax cuts if they pass. Going to be more people working overtime now I would imagine. I work a lot of overtime in a year. I can't say this will make me too unhappy to pay less in taxes.

All of the Social Security tax revenue that the IRS receives gets plowed back into the SS fund, so this bill will advance the date by a couple of years when the SS fund does not have enough money to pay benefits in full and will have to start cutting benefits. Most politicians kick the can down the road. Trump's kicking it back towards us.

Besides, it's not as big of a break as it sounds. There's already no tax on SS benefits for married couples filing jointly making less than 33k, 50% tax on SS income for those making between 32k and $44k, and 85% for the bulk of SS taxpayers which includes myself.

Find a way to replace the lost revenue and I'm all for it. But if they don't, the peanuts they're giving us with the tax cuts won't come close to replacing the benefit cuts we're subject to in a few years if the fund doesn't have enough money to pay its obligations.

In addition, these tax cuts are inflationary and will reduce the real value of that money of which we're getting back, causing the Fed to raise interest rates, make housing more expensive, et al. I'd much rather save these tax cuts for times when the economy is doing poorly.

If Trump is serious about doing something for the working class, then he should give up on his idiotic tariffs that is raising prices on consumer goods. Trump has done one helluva lot more harm to the working class with his tariffs than any benefit they might receive from this tax bill.

Aseahawkfan wrote:This tax bill is the nicest to the middle, working class, and old I've seen in ages. No tax on overtime. No tax on tips. No tax on social security. Sheesh. Never seen tax breaks like this for working people.

We'll see what the hits are to Medicare/Medicaid. Those are some crazy tax cuts if they pass. Going to be more people working overtime now I would imagine. I work a lot of overtime in a year. I can't say this will make me too unhappy to pay less in taxes.

No tax on overtime. Ok be that is it may.

Small Business Owner
1) Can I even afford to pay an employee overtime?

2) Rising Energy Cost

3) Tariffs on imported goods, therefore retail prices has to go up, and basic economics, higher prices usually results in lower volume sales activity

4) If you are a small business in area that relies on travelers, with projected travel and tourism to be hitting record lows, less revenue opportunity.

5) Limited materials resource, therefore common infrastructure cost are on the rise.

I don't see how offering an attractable idea of allowing no tax on overtime, when most small business owners have to contend with one of their highest expenses, which is salary and wages. Yes on the surface it sounds good to an prospective employee, but this can't circumvent the reality that most small business's out there are going to suffer, and wouldn't be able to afford to offer overtime.

I have owned two small businesses in my time while in the US, and i can tell you salary and wages is category you have to monitor while operating a profitable business.

River Dog wrote:All of the Social Security tax revenue that the IRS receives gets plowed back into the SS fund, so this bill will advance the date by a couple of years when the SS fund does not have enough money to pay benefits in full and will have to start cutting benefits. Most politicians kick the can down the road. Trump's kicking it back towards us.

Besides, it's not as big of a break as it sounds. There's already no tax on SS benefits for married couples filing jointly making less than 33k, 50% tax on SS income for those making between 32k and $44k, and 85% for the bulk of SS taxpayers which includes myself.

Find a way to replace the lost revenue and I'm all for it. But if they don't, the peanuts they're giving us with the tax cuts won't come close to replacing the benefit cuts we're subject to in a few years if the fund doesn't have enough money to pay its obligations.

In addition, these tax cuts are inflationary and will reduce the real value of that money of which we're getting back, causing the Fed to raise interest rates, make housing more expensive, et al. I'd much rather save these tax cuts for times when the economy is doing poorly.

If Trump is serious about doing something for the working class, then he should give up on his idiotic tariffs that is raising prices on consumer goods. Trump has done one helluva lot more harm to the working class with his tariffs than any benefit they might receive from this tax bill.

We will have to see what the tariff revenues bring in for the government at this point to offset.

I already told you inflation is coming regardless. There is literally no way out of this debt for the government but to spike inflation. You can keep telling yourself otherwise until your blue in the face, but neither the Democrats nor Republicans will manage the government with any sense of fiscal responsibility. So they have to inflate their way to a more reasonable debt so the debt percentage compared to GDP becomes more manageable. The percentage based taxes will lead to a larger amount of tax revenue if the GDP is inflated.

We'll see what the tariffs bring in. They may offset the lost revenue some, but we shall see their effect as more data comes in.

Right now, assets that will rise with inflation will likely do well going into the future because the U.S. government has mismanaged the debt so badly that the only choice is steady inflation with periods of hyper-inflation and then try to make it as reasonable as possible for the older, fixed income folks and to put it bluntly...hope they die off fast enough to alleviate the cost through attrition.

That's the kind of stuff the government won't say, but is definitely doing. They can't afford to pay for a bunch of old folks with medical maladies to sit on the government payroll system for 20 years plus. I say that as someone heading there soon myself. It's pragmatic reality. I know I'm going to have to deal with it along with the rest of the gen xers and after.

Main hope is AI and robotics allow far more low cost labor coverage that severely reduces the need for humans and the cost of medical and other services. If you can program doctors, nurses, and the like to handle care, then you can bring a lot more labor online quickly to reduce the labor needs to care for an elderly population. If they don't like robots and AI, oh well, that's what they're going to get. Definitely going to help to use robots for handling very dangerous infectious diseases and such.

Expect extreme technological change in the next 20 years a the age of robots and AI advances which will change everything we do on all levels. This right now is the worst it will ever be. Even at this worst level now, it's replacing coders and other mental work jobs. It will replace physical jobs once robotics advances. That will change the economic cost of labor in extreme ways in the future which will likely allow us to manage human sickness much cheaper.

4XPIPS wrote:No tax on overtime. Ok be that is it may.

Small Business Owner
1) Can I even afford to pay an employee overtime?

2) Rising Energy Cost

3) Tariffs on imported goods, therefore retail prices has to go up, and basic economics, higher prices usually results in lower volume sales activity

4) If you are a small business in area that relies on travelers, with projected travel and tourism to be hitting record lows, less revenue opportunity.

5) Limited materials resource, therefore common infrastructure cost are on the rise.

I don't see how offering an attractable idea of allowing no tax on overtime, when most small business owners have to contend with one of their highest expenses, which is salary and wages. Yes on the surface it sounds good to an prospective employee, but this can't circumvent the reality that most small business's out there are going to suffer, and wouldn't be able to afford to offer overtime.

I have owned two small businesses in my time while in the US, and i can tell you salary and wages is category you have to monitor while operating a profitable business.

Aren't you in New Zealand? Or is that someone else?

1. From what I understand overtime will be a tax deduction at the end of the year which I imagine most companies will account for on a per paycheck basis so the IRS doesn't have to send back a bunch of money. Employers still have to pay all the associated employment insurance, medicare, and social security for overtime. Only FICO is deduced. It's up to 12,500.

2. Why are energy costs rising? My bills are pretty stable in Washington State. They are bringing a lot more power capacity online in the form of nuclear power as well as other forms of power. The new bill will make use of oil, coal, and the like cheaper and easier to use. I would think gas prices will be cheaper in the United States as EVs lose the support of the Federal government as will solar.

3. Yep. Tariffs will cause prices to rise with certain nations. Vietnam has a 20 percent tariff now, which will cause Nikes and such to rise. I imagine supply chains will have to adapt according to the treaties. All that is still be worked out. As the situation clears up, we'll see what effect it has good and bad. I want to see how much the tariffs bring into the federal coffers versus how much they spike inflation. What kind of split between producer and seller and customer gets passed through.

4. Tourism seems to have taken a hit. The immigration issues are the bigger problem with tourism right now near as I can tell. People don't want to get detained by ICE while they're visiting because over-aggressive immigration enforcement kicks them from the country while they're on vacation. That part is pretty stupid and this bill puts a lot more money into ICE's pocket.

5. Infrastructure costs would rise regardless. We need tons of copper, lithium, steel, etcetera. Not sure how this is a change. The AI data centers, EVs, robots, and the like will require huge infrastructure upgrades. That's why investing in power companies and other companies building out this infrastructure is how you make money on this expansion. It should drive job growth until the robots and AI start to take over as the years go on.

Bill passed.

Overtime: 12,500 of overtime can be deducted. This will put more money in the hands of hourly workers for consumption.

Tips: Tip workers got a big boost. More disposable income.

Social Security deduction: Not real sure how much impact this will have as people on social security don't make a whole lot from what I understand, so didn't pay a huge amount of taxes in the American graduated tax system. I imagine some real high social security earners might see some benefit.

Clean energy and EVs were hammered in this bill. We'll see how this impacts EV companies. Elon Musk built Tesla on carbon credits and EV rebates.

Medicaid and ACA medical was hammered. I think it's pretty clear Trump doesn't care about poor people very much at all. Democrats have always believed Republicans don't care for the poor and this bill is a continuation of Republicans doing what Republicans do economically. They do not care about the poor.

Unemployment at 4.1 percent with this jobs report.

Fed may not cut interest rates in July with this strong a jobs market. We shall see.

I'm seeing companies doing layoffs like Microsoft. I can feel the tightening of belts in corporations. There are major changes on the horizon with AI and robotics being pushed hard in the coming years. I think some estimates of robotics are too optimistic, but the Age of AI is here and the Age of Robots is very near and going to ramp up in the coming years. We're finally going to see some crazy sci fi robotics and AI in the next decade or so.

Man, the stuff you see in a lifetime is pretty amazing. I'm in my 50s now. I've seen us go from hardline phones to big box TVs with 10 channels to cars with roll up handles to computers, EVs, and now robots and AIs. The technological acceleration is amazing. I would love to live long enough to see Mars or another planet colonized. That stuff is just getting started. If we get very advanced robotics, we should be able to colonize other planets with robots acting as a preparatory colonization unit with humans to follow shortly. It will be incredible to see this all brought to life.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
Aren't you in New Zealand? Or is that someone else?

What does me having to be in New Zealand do with this? Are you suggesting I have no say in this topic? I am still an American Citizen, who pays taxes in the US. I have investments in the US, and I own property in the US. I still have to file a tax return as an expat whether I work and live in New Zealand. Narrow minded thinking always shows at times with you Aseahawk

4XPIPS wrote:What does me having to be in New Zealand do with this? Are you suggesting I have no say in this topic? I am still an American Citizen, who pays taxes in the US. I have investments in the US, and I own property in the US. I still have to file a tax return as an expat whether I work and live in New Zealand. Narrow minded thinking always shows at times with you Aseahawk

Or I'm wondering how an American in New Zealand will be affected by an American tax bill. That might be interesting to know. How does this impact you? I'm assuming though you have to file an American tax return, you have to pay local New Zealand business taxes? New Zealand is a tiny nation. I'm not even sure what kind of tax treaties exist with New Zealand. I don't invest in any New Zealand businesses that I know of, so I don't track them other than the occasional news on them like not allowing nuclear ships or subs and banning all guns after they had a shooting. And of course it's a beautiful nation where Lord of the Rings was shot by Peter Jackson.

Not sure why you jumped the gun to something negative, but it wasn't intended. How are you impacted living in New Zealand? Is most of your business here in America?

Bill seemed fairly friendly to business other than the tariffs. I'm not sure what the tariffs are on New Zealand. Does America get much from New Zealand? Did they get the standard 10 percent? Do we have much of a trade deficit with New Zealand?

You should shade your investments into industries not impacted as heavily by the tariffs or the Medicaid/ACA cuts or anything else negative in the bill. I'm following all this fairly close to see how it impacts my investments. I sold out of Tesla a while back because of the removal of EV credits which I think will hit EV adoption hard. I haven't touched solar companies with Trump in office either. He doesn't love clean energy much at all.

At the moment, I'm focused on chip companies, power companies including nuclear though that seems a bubble now, and mostly treading carefully in treasuries while they work a lot of this tariff business out. Stocks are trading at all time highs, but this new bill, low unemployment, and possibly rate cuts coming are more likely to pump it higher unless there is some unforeseen shock. Even oil prices are really, really low which is why I'm wondering how you're seeing power prices rising.

I started this thread because I'm more interested in the economics of this bill than the politics. The economics look very, very positive.

It will put ~17 million off Medicaid. Kids are going to starve - as the rich get WAY richer. The middle class does not benefit , and I’ve seen signs it will hurt is a lot. This matters to so many, and, in theory, it may affect the voting of the mid terms. And makes ICE one of the best funded military operations in US history. I have a problem with that. I don’t understand where you’re coming from, Asea, but you are becoming very divisive in this (OT, at least) forum.

Stream Hawk wrote:It will put ~17 million off Medicaid. Kids are going to starve - as the rich get WAY richer. The middle class does not benefit , and I’ve seen signs it will hurt is a lot. This matters to so many, and, in theory, it may affect the voting of the mid terms. And makes ICE one of the best funded military operations in US history. I have a problem with that. I don’t understand where you’re coming from, Asea, but you are becoming very divisive in this (OP at least) forum.

If you're not looking to discuss this Bill from an economics perspective to position your investments and money to benefit, then not sure what to tell you. Go find some Trump lover to scream at about the bill and tell them how bad it will all be while the economy grows and the middle and working class see more disposable income and their retirement accounts increase from the stock appreciation. If this Bill tanks the economy, you'll see it in real time and real terms meaning your pocketbook.

It seems to me you're looking for someone to fight with and I'm looking for people to talk about this bill with who want to make money.

Seems that Trump's bill is trying to reinvigorate American ship building. Probably a good idea to see what American ship builder companies with stocks may benefit from this reinvestment.

As well as the Golden Dome design companies.

We already have several promises of investment in American manufacturing from big companies in the billions. It's fairly easy to see most of those companies like NVDA, GOOG, META, and the like.

Companies that build power infrastructure should also benefit. Eaton, Siemens, Monolithic Power, and the like. There has to be a big buildout as the power needs of the future are immense.

4XPIPS wrote:No tax on overtime. Ok be that is it may.

Small Business Owner
1) Can I even afford to pay an employee overtime?

2) Rising Energy Cost

3) Tariffs on imported goods, therefore retail prices has to go up, and basic economics, higher prices usually results in lower volume sales activity

4) If you are a small business in area that relies on travelers, with projected travel and tourism to be hitting record lows, less revenue opportunity.

5) Limited materials resource, therefore common infrastructure cost are on the rise.

I don't see how offering an attractable idea of allowing no tax on overtime, when most small business owners have to contend with one of their highest expenses, which is salary and wages. Yes on the surface it sounds good to an prospective employee, but this can't circumvent the reality that most small business's out there are going to suffer, and wouldn't be able to afford to offer overtime.

I have owned two small businesses in my time while in the US, and i can tell you salary and wages is category you have to monitor while operating a profitable business.

That's one of the problems with our political system: It's short sighted. They don't look deep enough into an issue to see what the unintended and counterproductive consequences are because the typical voter is short sighted as well.

Not to divert the discussion, but your remarks about small business owners and the issues they face reminded me of a recent rent control bill passed and signed into law by our Democratic state government in WA limiting rent increases to 5% per year. While it sounds good on the surface, all it's going to do is discourage people from renting out properties, limiting supply and raising already sky-high housing prices. For example, there is no such limit on property tax increases, which can easily rise more than 50% in one year.

I have a friend who remodeled his small, 3-bedroom house in an upper middle-class neighborhood in Richland WA, adding what amounted to a studio apartment with a single bedroom, a full bath, and a separate entrance so that his 80-something year old dad could live with him rather than move into assisted living. My friend's wife works as a nurse in a nursing home and fully capable of giving his dad the care that he needed, so the setup was perfect. The money they saved by not sending the old man to assisted living paid for the improvement, and they got to have their dad close by without him actually living with them. It was a win-win.

The old man eventually passed away, and my friend was left with this single room. It would be perfect as a rental, but with the aggressive way that our state government has treated landlords, he says that there is no way that he'd ever rent it out. So now there's a perfect studio apartment that could be rented out for a reasonable rate but it's sitting dormant, off the market, accumulating cardboard boxes of old clothes and stuff.

Once again, sorry for the diversion.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If you're not looking to discuss this Bill from an economics perspective to position your investments and money to benefit, then not sure what to tell you. Go find some Trump lover to scream at about the bill and tell them how bad it will all be while the economy grows and the middle and working class see more disposable income and their retirement accounts increase from the stock appreciation. If this Bill tanks the economy, you'll see it in real time and real terms meaning your pocketbook.

It seems to me you're looking for someone to fight with and I'm looking for people to talk about this bill with who want to make money.

Fair point. Sorry, I was on a rant. I will discuss NFL next months, but clearly I’d rather not debate politics in here. It’s a weakness of mine. Happy 4th

River Dog wrote:That's one of the problems with our political system: It's short sighted. They don't look deep enough into an issue to see what the unintended and counterproductive consequences are because the typical voter is short sighted as well.

Not to divert the discussion, but your remarks about small business owners and the issues they face reminded me of a recent rent control bill passed and signed into law by our Democratic state government in WA limiting rent increases to 5% per year. While it sounds good on the surface, all it's going to do is discourage people from renting out properties, limiting supply and raising already sky-high housing prices. For example, there is no such limit on property tax increases, which can easily rise more than 50% in one year.

I have a friend who remodeled his small, 3-bedroom house in an upper middle-class neighborhood in Richland WA, adding what amounted to a studio apartment with a single bedroom, a full bath, and a separate entrance so that his 80-something year old dad could live with him rather than move into assisted living. My friend's wife works as a nurse in a nursing home and fully capable of giving his dad the care that he needed, so the setup was perfect. The money they saved by not sending the old man to assisted living paid for the improvement, and they got to have their dad close by without him actually living with them. It was a win-win.

The old man eventually passed away, and my friend was left with this single room. It would be perfect as a rental, but with the aggressive way that our state government has treated landlords, he says that there is no way that he'd ever rent it out. So now there's a perfect studio apartment that could be rented out for a reasonable rate but it's sitting dormant, off the market, accumulating cardboard boxes of old clothes and stuff.

Once again, sorry for the diversion.

There was more in the bill than the rent increase limits. My landlord sent out a notification that they will no longer offer long-term leases. Part of the provision in the bill is you can't treat month to month renters any different from renters signing a long-term lease. So my landlord is no longer offering long-term leases locked in at discounted rates. Now everyone is month to month paying the same amount and can leave whenever per the law with 20 days of notice. Rents can be raised with a year notice. It's a pretty terribly designed bill that will severely damage renters. I'm not even sure who designed the bill and how they got it voted in. But they did.

My buddy thinks Bob Ferguson is worse than Inslee. I have no idea how to rate that. Both are pretty terrible and pretty far left.

I'm moving to Texas soon. I've reached my limit for Washington politics. I'm waiting for them to vote in a state income tax to go with the high sales tax and the high gas tax and other fees.

Stream Hawk wrote:Fair point. Sorry, I was on a rant. I will discuss NFL next months, but clearly I’d rather not debate politics in here. It’s a weakness of mine. Happy 4th

Happy 4th to you too.

I get it. People on here hate Trump. I don't care for the man myself as president. But I am not going to make myself poor to hate a man. I've got to look at this bill objectively and position to boost my investments.

I think there are tough times coming for America. I truly believe the inflation they must cause to escape the debt collapse is inevitable. Even when they inflate the GDP to grow it large enough to take the debt from 124 percent of GDP back down to under 100 percent, they will still have to figure out how to keep the debt from ballooning again.

Then as Riverdog pointed out, the social security and Medicare situation still has to be dealt with and Trump kicked it down the line 2 to 4 years until Democrats can take Congress or even the Republicans have to fix it too or lose power as the senior citizens have no choice but to vote for a social security fix.

It's like we're repeating what happened 100 years ago with a slight variation. We had a pandemic. Now it's the Roaring 20s, which was followed by an extreme economic collapse known as The Great Depression. That's the part I hope we can avoid. I guess we'll see how we compare when 2029 comes around again.

Aseahawkfan wrote:There was more in the bill than the rent increase limits. My landlord sent out a notification that they will no longer offer long-term leases. Part of the provision in the bill is you can't treat month to month renters any different from renters signing a long-term lease. So my landlord is no longer offering long-term leases locked in at discounted rates. Now everyone is month to month paying the same amount and can leave whenever per the law with 20 days of notice. Rents can be raised with a year notice. It's a pretty terribly designed bill that will severely damage renters. I'm not even sure who designed the bill and how they got it voted in. But they did.

My buddy thinks Bob Ferguson is worse than Inslee. I have no idea how to rate that. Both are pretty terrible and pretty far left.

I'm moving to Texas soon. I've reached my limit for Washington politics. I'm waiting for them to vote in a state income tax to go with the high sales tax and the high gas tax and other fees.

I hadn't realized that they put all those limitations on landlords in addition to the limit on annual rent increases. Wow, what a POS law! And they have the gall to whine about the housing crisis contributing to all the homeless in our state. Unbelievable.

One thing that we won't have to worry about, at least not for a long time, is a state income tax. Here's why:

In 1933, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a graduated income tax was unconstitutional, classifying income as “property” under Article VII of the state constitution.

That means any tax on income must be uniform and limited to 1%—which effectively blocks a progressive income tax.

To change this, voters would need to approve a constitutional amendment. This requires:

A two-thirds majority in both chambers of the state legislature

Followed by a simple majority vote in a statewide election

Now, there is a chance that a future state Supreme Court could overturn that ruling. But as of now and as much as they'd like to, there's no way that the state Legislature can implement an income tax.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Seems that Trump's bill is trying to reinvigorate American ship building. Probably a good idea to see what American ship builder companies with stocks may benefit from this reinvestment.

As well as the Golden Dome design companies.

We already have several promises of investment in American manufacturing from big companies in the billions. It's fairly easy to see most of those companies like NVDA, GOOG, META, and the like.

Companies that build power infrastructure should also benefit. Eaton, Siemens, Monolithic Power, and the like. There has to be a big buildout as the power needs of the future are immense.

Better not invest in any kind of health care related stocks. With the cuts in Medicaid and Obamacare projected to leave 17 million without medical insurance, there's going to be a lot of health care providers losing a significant number of their patients.

River Dog wrote:I hadn't realized that they put all those limitations on landlords in addition to the limit on annual rent increases. Wow, what a POS law! And they have the gall to whine about the housing crisis contributing to all the homeless in our state. Unbelievable.

One thing that we won't have to worry about, at least not for a long time, is a state income tax. Here's why:

In 1933, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a graduated income tax was unconstitutional, classifying income as “property” under Article VII of the state constitution.

That means any tax on income must be uniform and limited to 1%—which effectively blocks a progressive income tax.

To change this, voters would need to approve a constitutional amendment. This requires:

A two-thirds majority in both chambers of the state legislature

Followed by a simple majority vote in a statewide election

Now, there is a chance that a future state Supreme Court could overturn that ruling. But as of now and as much as they'd like to, there's no way that the state Legislature can implement an income tax.

Yep. Pretty lousy law. I've been a renter most of my life as I don't enjoy property ownership. I've always paid under market rate rent, usually with a 12 month lease. With this change, no deals for anyone. You're all month to month with the same rent. I expect landlords to dream up fees to make up for the lost income from these attempts to engineer the system rather than zone land for house expansion. Practically all I see being built in Washington State is new apartments for rent. Even Bezos is part of a crowd funded real estate rental and house flipping company called Arrived. This further allows monied people to buy all the available housing for investments. This crap rental law is the best the Washington Democrats can come up with to "help out" the working and middle class.

Our political parties can no longer be trusted. Now we got megalomaniac Elon Musk starting his own party because he has too much money to waste on his "hobbies."

River Dog wrote:Better not invest in any kind of health care related stocks. With the cuts in Medicaid and Obamacare projected to leave 17 million without medical insurance, there's going to be a lot of health care providers losing a significant number of their patients.

Not sure if you noticed, but United Health and a lot of healthcare companies have taken a huge haircut. Partly because of these changes and partly for other reasons. They were making insane amounts of money.

There is this new company that I'm looking at called Oscar Health. It will get hurt by this bill, but at the same time it has a unique method for providing health insurance. Seems to offer a service where you buy a plan, let your employer know what plan you purchased, and allows your employer to reimburse you a certain amount using the software. It acts as a go between for the employee, employer, and the health insurance company allowing more autonomy for the employee while still allowing the employer to provide some support for healthcare. It does rely on ACA subsidies for a portion of its income. I'm wondering with health insurance becoming more expensive if Oscar will help increase competition in the marketplace which would help Oscar thrive. Health insurance needs real competition to bring costs down and improve access. Right now companies are the consumers of health insurance with very little individual competition. They buy huge bloc plans for employees. Health insurance needs to be priced for individuals so it is more affordable. Oscar may help that since the Democrats can't seem to acquire enough political power to get a good single payer option in place. If we can't get an affordable, well managed government option, some kind of competition that directly sells to the consumer would be an improvement.

River Dog wrote:Better not invest in any kind of health care related stocks. With the cuts in Medicaid and Obamacare projected to leave 17 million without medical insurance, there's going to be a lot of health care providers losing a significant number of their patients.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Not sure if you noticed, but United Health and a lot of healthcare companies have taken a huge haircut. Partly because of these changes and partly for other reasons. They were making insane amounts of money.

No, I didn't notice, but it doesn't surprise me. United Health is one of the largest Medicare Advantage providers, of which in my opinion, is a huge scam. They make drug companies disclose every possible side effect on drugs they're advertising, but nowhere in those Medicare Advantage ads do they mention one word about the disadvantages. Traditional Medicare is by law not allowed to advertise, so retirees are getting a one-sided view by relying on those commercials for information.

Aseahawkfan wrote:There is this new company that I'm looking at called Oscar Health. It will get hurt by this bill, but at the same time it has a unique method for providing health insurance. Seems to offer a service where you buy a plan, let your employer know what plan you purchased, and allows your employer to reimburse you a certain amount using the software. It acts as a go between for the employee, employer, and the health insurance company allowing more autonomy for the employee while still allowing the employer to provide some support for healthcare. It does rely on ACA subsidies for a portion of its income. I'm wondering with health insurance becoming more expensive if Oscar will help increase competition in the marketplace which would help Oscar thrive. Health insurance needs real competition to bring costs down and improve access. Right now companies are the consumers of health insurance with very little individual competition. They buy huge bloc plans for employees. Health insurance needs to be priced for individuals so it is more affordable. Oscar may help that since the Democrats can't seem to acquire enough political power to get a good single payer option in place. If we can't get an affordable, well managed government option, some kind of competition that directly sells to the consumer would be an improvement.

I don't like the idea of a single payer health care system as it eliminates competition and lowers quality, stifles R&D, but that's another subject.

This isn't just a "Tax Bill." There's a whole lot of stuff in there that's going to hurt the working class.

I just found out that there's a good chance that I may lose my primary care provider. His clinic serves the lower Yakima Valley, where there's a lot of farm workers that are on Medicaid. This "Big, Beautiful Bill,", in addition to the income tax cuts on SS and OT income, slashes about a trillion dollars out of Medicaid. This is going to decimate clinics like those where my PCP works at. It's not going to hurt just those who are on Medicaid, it's going to hurt working class people, too, force them to look for other options for their health care needs.

So please, don't tell me how great this bill is for the working class. It's one of the worst pieces of federal legislation to have been passed in my lifetime.

River Dog wrote:I don't like the idea of a single payer health care system as it eliminates competition and lowers quality, stifles R&D, but that's another subject.

You have monopolized healthcare as it is with no competition. Not sure what you think would be different. Right now you have regulated monopolized healthcare that has made the cost of doing business far, far higher than it would be in a truly competitive system and costing too much unlike a socialized system. Right now you are getting the worst of both and most can't even seem to accept that by all available metrics that is what is happening.

Even that article we debated a while back where you posted that 50 percent of drug development was done by private companies, while 50 percent was done by public money. To you that seem to prove that this system works to develop drugs but that's not what it showed at all. It showed that public taxpayer money funds 50 percent of drug development so companies can obtain 100 percent of the profits. I don't see how you can consider that intelligent use of taxpayer money to pay for 50 percent of drug development while letting a private company retain 100 percent profits and charge the taxpayer that helped fund the research exorbitant prices to obtain no better health outcomes than other nations.

We've already had this discussion many times. I've showed you how wrong you are with piles of data and facts you ignore or interpret in a very strange way like the fact that drug development is 50 percent private/50 percent public with 100 percent of profits privatized. I have no idea why you consider that in anyway moral or even intelligent economic management. Why should any tax money support drug development if the company doing the developing retains 100 percent of the profits and sells to Joe Taxpayer at exorbitant fees after expecting Joe Taxpayer to fund 50 percent of their drug development.

I hope this younger generation isn't as dopey as the older generation when it comes to healthcare. You and other older conservatives are flat out ignoring the economic and scientific data that you're paying more for less in America. It's damn sad to see a group of people so stuck in a mindset they completely ignore the data that proves they are making a mistake that I hope the younger generation fixes in time. No more ignorantly and mindlessly believing "capitalist" healthcare which America is not works well, which it is does not.

I'll leave it there as I know you're stuck in the mindset we have capitalist healthcare and that drug development is your main reason for pushing this even 50 percent of it taxpayer funded.

River Dog wrote:This isn't just a "Tax Bill." There's a whole lot of stuff in there that's going to hurt the working class.

I just found out that there's a good chance that I may lose my primary care provider. His clinic serves the lower Yakima Valley, where there's a lot of farm workers that are on Medicaid. This "Big, Beautiful Bill,", in addition to the income tax cuts on SS and OT income, slashes about a trillion dollars out of Medicaid. This is going to decimate clinics like those where my PCP works at. It's not going to hurt just those who are on Medicaid, it's going to hurt working class people, too, force them to look for other options for their health care needs.

So please, don't tell me how great this bill is for the working class. It's one of the worst pieces of federal legislation to have been passed in my lifetime.

This is the kind of cognitive dissonance that is damn irritating with human beings. You just wrote that you don't want government support of the healthcare system, now you're complaining when that government support is cut. What short-signed, selfish rubbish.

Oh, you're concerned about healthcare? What about capitalism Riverdog? You don't need those Medicare boosts from the government, capitalist healthcare is the best. If those clinics can't survive with capitalist healthcare, I guess they shouldn't survive. Competition in healthcare, right?

If you're healthy worker, all those jobs and tax breaks on tips and overtime are great for you. It will be great for the healthy working and middle class. But if you're sick or live in places that can't compete in the healthcare market, I guess you're SOL.

But you gotta live by what you believe Riverdog. You don't believe in government supported healthcare. So reap it if you that's what you believe.

For healthy middle and working class people, this bill is great. Going to make them more money, boost their stocks, and boost their investments. Make people more money. Just don't get sick in the wrong area, Riverdog.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want government supported healthcare for all or for no one. Go find a capitalist way to keep it going. You said the capitalist method to healthcare works. Make it work, Riverdog, like you claim it does.

River Dog wrote:This isn't just a "Tax Bill." There's a whole lot of stuff in there that's going to hurt the working class.

I just found out that there's a good chance that I may lose my primary care provider. His clinic serves the lower Yakima Valley, where there's a lot of farm workers that are on Medicaid. This "Big, Beautiful Bill,", in addition to the income tax cuts on SS and OT income, slashes about a trillion dollars out of Medicaid. This is going to decimate clinics like those where my PCP works at. It's not going to hurt just those who are on Medicaid, it's going to hurt working class people, too, force them to look for other options for their health care needs.

So please, don't tell me how great this bill is for the working class. It's one of the worst pieces of federal legislation to have been passed in my lifetime.

Aseahawkfan wrote:This is the kind of cognitive dissonance that is damn irritating with human beings. You just wrote that you want government support of the healthcare system, now you're complaining when that government support is cut. What short-signed, selfish rubbish.

Oh, you're concerned about healthcare? What about capitalism Riverdog? You don't need those Medicare boosts from the government, capitalist healthcare is the best. If those clinics can't survive with capitalist healthcare, I guess they shouldn't survive. Competition in healthcare, right?

If you're healthy worker, all those jobs and tax breaks on tips and overtime are great for you. It will be great for the healthy working and middle class. But if you're sick or live in places that can't compete in the healthcare market, I guess you're SOL.

But you gotta live by what you believe Riverdog. You don't believe in government supported healthcare. So reap it if you that's what you believe.

For healthy middle and working class people, this bill is great. Going to make them more money, boost their stocks, and boost their investments. Make people more money. Just don't get sick in the wrong area, Riverdog.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want government supported healthcare for all or for no one. Go find a capitalist way to keep it going. You said the capitalist method to healthcare works. Make it work, Riverdog, like you claim it does.

Yes, I can have it both ways. IMO the existing government health care programs, specifically Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and the VA, have to be maintained, at least for the near future. I don't necessarily like or agree with them, but they are here, and we have to deal with them. There are too many people who depend on them for us to be pulling the carpet out from beneath them.

What I meant by not wanting to go to a single payer health care system is this decades-long movement towards a single payer, national health care system similar to what western European countries and Canada have, like the Medicare for All proposal of a few years ago and that Ted Kennedy proposed back in the 70's. We have to allow drug manufacturers and companies that invent medical devices like MRI's and CT scans to make a handsome profit off their new products if we are to find new cures for diseases and improve the quality of our lives. I don't want to take away the profit motive. It's not a dirty word.

I don't like Medicaid any more than DJT likes it. But the reality is that there are over 70 million people, around 20% of the total US population, that are currently on Medicaid. That's too many people to be making significant changes to a critical program with little more than a few months' notice while offering no viable alternatives. It's too much of a shock effect. The "Big, Beautiful Bill" cuts Medicaid funding by 20-25%. If you're going to make large scale reductions, it needs to be modest and graduated over the course of years, not months. Imagine the military having to adjust to a 25% reduction in funding within a matter of months.

If you want to downsize them, then do it incrementally. For example, Medicaid. Raise the bar...or lowering it depending on how you look at it...for acceptance to Medicaid. Currently, it's at 138% of the poverty level. Lower that percentage to 125%. Don't kick anyone off of it but start limiting the number of new people enrolling. Fewer people enrolling combined with the Baby Boomer generation dying off will result in a smaller program.

I do agree that there has to be a certain amount of government regulation, that there's a delicate balance between over regulation that stifles R&D and excessive profiteering that limits consumer access. Things like the lifespan of patents have to be calculated so as to allow companies to make a profit off a new drug, giving them a financial means to support their R&D departments, while establishing a point where other companies can jump in and offer the same product with the resulting competition lowers the price while raising quality and service.

That's why you haven't heard me railing about the cost of this weight loss drug I've been on, which is costing me over $500/month. But at some point, that cost has to come down to where more people can afford it.