New Tax Bill Released today

[Aseahawkfan]

Now I"m reading they want to use grants and leave medical/medicare more to the states according to demand within the state. As usual it's always a zero sum game with the liberal media and Democrats as they stoke class warfare to try to get their way. If you give tax cuts to the rich, the poor will suffer. There are other ways to administer these programs and maybe we need to try some of them that will save us money and increase competition. You ever read those stories about the government paying a $100 for a hammer that costs $12? That's what happens when you don't have anyone in the government looking to make these plans cost effective. Instead it's pay whatever the insurer is asking and just keep taxing more and more rather than, "we have a lot of business to give. What kind of deal you willing to give us for all that business?"

The Republicans as usual are not cutting without a plan in place to provide service. It's a plan that involves more state involvement and block grants to medical services rather than a centrally administered one size fits all plan.

[idhawkman]

Gawd dude, you are living in a dream world. I have no idea what Rump has done to you but I'm still guessing since you chose to not answer your yearly income that you are ecxstatic about your taxes based on your income. You sidestepped the question just like Huckabee-Sanders does.

That isn't good for America dude. You have a guy that skipped out on military service as your president, meanwhile, I served in Vietnam and came home alive. You elected a COWARD. Did you serve?..whats your status? I was shot at by viet kong serving my country and now I have a cowardly lion that would piss himself and is in charge of making decisions on my future. BLECH.

It's a sorry viewpoint and constant defending of this president that is just deplorable. Congrats. You got your perfect storm, enjoy it's brief tenure. And the 75,000 idiots in poor states for believing this narrcissistic jackwad and electing him. They deserve all they get, although probably NOT smart enough to know the difference.

I chose not to answer this right away becuase if I did I think you would devolve further into personal attacks and you just got back to the shack so I didn't want to see you go again. I actually like some of your Seahawk Posts.

Most people on this forum know that I am a vet. Served in the 9th infantry, 82nd airborne and three Special Forces groups as a fully Q qualified, tab wearing, full flash Green Beret. I then served for an additional 9 years for one of those three letter agencies and was the first person assigned in Kahzakstan and first permanently assigned person in Kiev. Please do not question my bona fides again.

Everyone knows that you don't have to be a Vet to be POTUS. In fact, this whole government is setup to be civilian control over the government. Past generals who have served as POTUS is usually after a war where we needed the leadership but it always goes back to non-military after the tension has simmered down. Serving this government comes in many forms and I'm very happy he is sharing his expertise with the people at this time. Yes, I'm deplorable and proud of it. That said, I don't have to devolve into name calling and trying to shame you into my way of thinking even though you seem to think that is the way to "get your way". I choose to not participate in that.

[burrrton]

You did if the cost of living rose by 8%.

Ok, you want to get away from static analysis, too? Good.

[Aseahawkfan]

I chose not to answer this right away becuase if I did I think you would devolve further into personal attacks and you just got back to the shack so I didn't want to see you go again. I actually like some of your Seahawk Posts.

Most people on this forum know that I am a vet. Served in the 9th infantry, 82nd airborne and three Special Forces groups as a fully Q qualified, tab wearing, full flash Green Beret. I then served for an additional 9 years for one of those three letter agencies and was the first person assigned in Kahzakstan and first permanently assigned person in Kiev. Please do not question my bona fides again.

Everyone knows that you don't have to be a Vet to be POTUS. In fact, this whole government is setup to be civilian control over the government. Past generals who have served as POTUS is usually after a war where we needed the leadership but it always goes back to non-military after the tension has simmered down. Serving this government comes in many forms and I'm very happy he is sharing his expertise with the people at this time. Yes, I'm deplorable and proud of it. That said, I don't have to devolve into name calling and trying to shame you into my way of thinking even though you seem to think that is the way to "get your way". I choose to not participate in that.

Just goes to show how much of the reason the liberals hate Trump and his supporters. They are just like him, save on the other side. Casting insults and aspersions at the drop of a hat. Whole reason Trump was elected was because of liberals like Largent and Seahawks4ever that spend all their time insulting conservative people that believe in religion, personal responsibility, being self-made and self-sufficient, and honestly respecting both the benefits and responsibilities of freedom which very much include lower taxation for everyone as well as not having to take care of addicts and those that make bad decisions regardless of how they came up. I get so tired of having to cater to the poor. I've been around poor people all my life. A lot of them vice ridden, poor decision making, not wanting to do for themselves by learning to invest or manage money well people that want handouts taken from the "rich" they envy as they try to paint them all as part of the lucky sperm club no matter how often you show them that intelligent, conservative management of money and avoiding vice and other unhealthy behaviors can very much lead to a good life without government intervention. But of course the poor want to blame someone for their situation to make themselves feel better for the consequences of poor life choices.

I grew up poor. Came from a poor family. Every one of my uncles and aunts rose up from those circumstances through hard work and intelligent management of money to the point they could retire comfortably. If you studied my family, not a damn one of them got a break, not from the government or anyone else. I'm supposed to feel sympathy for people that would rather buy a pack of cigarettes than a book. I don't feel I should have to pay for them. Never have. I worked at a crappy 7/11 working my way through school paying my tuition out of pocket watching these poor people and their vice ridden behaviors. Many of the poor women couldn't keep their legs closed and every new child was added to the welfare system. They didn't want to learn to invest, it scared them. They spent time watching TV and other garbage behaviors. No sense of personal responsibility or want for self-improvement. Yet I'm to be punished for their choices with higher taxes and a party constantly driving class warfare as though the only people investing are millionaires and billionaires rather than some of us working folk that just want to manage our money well. And we do benefit from these types of tax breaks.

I may not agree with you on how our military is used as I see that as us acting as the world police which in essence is military welfare for the rest of the world as well as a immoral and unjust way to use a volunteer military whose primary purpose should be national defense, but we're in agreement on many things. I know it took a damn determined type of man to do what you did in the military. You don't make it as a Green Beret without a whole lot of desire to do so. I can respect that.

[c_hawkbob]

Ok, you want to get away from static analysis, too? Good.

No, I want to get away from hiding behind technicalities. Which is why I referred to is as a technicality in the first place.

[burrrton]

No, I want to get away from hiding behind technicalities. Which is why I referred to is as a technicality in the first place.

Static analysis is the technicality- behaviors change.

[idhawkman]

I know it took a damn determined type of man to do what you did in the military. You don't make it as a Green Beret without a whole lot of desire to do so. I can respect that.

Thank you, Asea. I appreciate the recognition.

[RiverDog]

Well you are wrong. That is the exact proposal that Senate Republicans put on the floor. It just hasn't been hammered out to mesh with the House proposal yet.

OK, I suppose you can call the Senate version a proposal if you want to get picky, but all it really amounts to is a starting point in negotiations between them and the House. There is no final bill on the table, and as I said, lots of things get thrown around, many of them never seeing the light of day on a floor vote.

Social Security and Medicare are a house of cards in their current configuration. It's either going to take a major tax increase or major cuts in benefits to sustain them. A person is frigging nuts if they think that SS and Medicare is going to support them in their retirement. If you are planning on SS being anything more than a third of your income when you hit the rocking chair, you're a fool. And Medicare is paying for less and less even without any cuts, so you'd better damn well plan on spending a healthy sum of that retirement income on a good Medicare supplement insurance no matter which party is calling the shots.

I'm surprised that they haven't raised the minimum Medicare age to 67 like they have Social Security, and I'm surprised that they haven't cut back or eliminated the early SS retirement. They could do stuff like that which would prolong the life of both programs without a tax increase or a reduction of benefits for those that are already on or soon to be on them and give enough time to younger workers to make alternate plans.

[burrrton]

Social Security and Medicare are a house of cards in their current configuration. It's either going to take a major tax increase or major cuts in benefits to sustain them.

Exactly. The question isn't whether you want to modify them or not- the question is whether you want to keep them or not.

As currently configured, they *are* going away. Period. Full stop.

Support politicians who will be honest with you about that and who suggest reasonable steps to make them sustainable again.

[idhawkman]

Social Security and Medicare are a house of cards in their current configuration. It's either going to take a major tax increase or major cuts in benefits to sustain them.

Exactly. The question isn't whether you want to modify them or not- the question is whether you want to keep them or not.

As currently configured, they *are* going away. Period. Full stop.

Support politicians who will be honest with you about that and who suggest reasonable steps to make them sustainable again.

You guys are freakin' people out whose only retirement plan is SS and Medicare. You are right about them but that doesn't matter to them. They want to follow the flute player out of town and into the river. Politicians today are playing all of us a song and most people don't want to wake up to it.

[RiverDog]

You guys are freakin' people out whose only retirement plan is SS and Medicare. You are right about them but that doesn't matter to them. They want to follow the flute player out of town and into the river. Politicians today are playing all of us a song and most people don't want to wake up to it.

You'd be shocked to know how many well educated Millennials are without a clue when it comes to retirement planning. I've seen couples with no kids and two well paying jobs not contributing enough to their 401K to even get the maximum company match, which is a paltry 6%. Everyone needs to be contributing 15% to a 401K or IRA. Not only will SS and Medicare not there, pensions and other "legacy" programs like retiree health plans are going away, too. Older established companies like Ford and GM can't compete with the Hondas and Toyotas that don't have the same legacy costs.

Basically people are going to have to learn to plan for their own retirement...and of course, most of them won't, so 30-40 years from now you're going to have an even greater stratification of classes than we have today, with those smart enough to save living on golf courses and those that have this insatiable urge for instant gratification working until they're well into their 70's.

[idhawkman]

those that have this insatiable urge for instant gratification working until they're well into their 70's.

I disagree. I don't think they'll work until they're in their 70s. I think they will have to work until they die. They will never be able to "retire". I would estimate about 75% of people 45 years old or younger will not be able to retire in their life - ever.

[Aseahawkfan]

They will vote in greater tax increases to pay for the old before they allow any of this to happen. Social Security and Medicare will be modified to continue. Too many people rely on them for them to disappear even with good retirement planning. As long as people have the power to vote, they can make change. Just as we've learned historically, let too many of your people become poor, disenfranchised, and starving, you will create a very violent, crime-ridden environment that will not be pleasant to live in. If my options are higher taxes or that type of environment that spawned things Nazi Germany, Communism, and general class revolution, I'll take the higher taxes as much as I would hate it. There are far worse ways to live than how parts of Europe live.

Though a darker idea that many don't think about as they further ignore the coming reality is that humans will slowly be managed by robots. Corporations are building robots for everything. Defense robots are becoming more and more a reality. It may be that by the time humans realize social security and medicare are done and decide to try to rise up, robots will be putting them down in large numbers with weapons paid for by their tax dollars because they've been asleep at the wheel for so long. A smaller mechanized military and police run by a small number of humans for repair as well as the advancement of A.I. such as Nvidia is putting out for management of information is moving forward. Once humans can use robots for managing life, large numbers of humans become less necessary and in fact a problem. Humans are notoriously difficult to manage given how they lack simple logic. They over-complicate a great deal of life, manage their lives based on unprovable, emotionally driven belief systems, and producing food is far less efficient than producing electricity for a robot workforce. Robots can do things like go to Mars or explore the universe whereas creating technology that stabilizes a biological lifeform in a hostile environment increases the costs of exploration and colonization. It will be interesting to see at the beginning of the robot age what kind of decisions humans will make as they advance their ability to create artificial life. It's too bad I won't be around to see it as is a long ways off.

[RiverDog]

I disagree. I don't think they'll work until they're in their 70s. I think they will have to work until they die. They will never be able to "retire". I would estimate about 75% of people 45 years old or younger will not be able to retire in their life - ever.

I doubt that you'll see 75% working for the rest of their lives for the simple fact that their health won't permit it in enough occupations to reach those kind of numbers. There's just X number of jobs handing out samples at Costco or welcomers at WalMart.

ASF, I simply don't see people voting themselves a tax increase large enough that would allow SS and Medicare as we know it today to survive. All I can see is continued cuts in services, who can get on it and when, and what it will cover, to a point when it becomes so irrelevant that it dies under its own weight.

[Aseahawkfan]

ASF, I simply don't see people voting themselves a tax increase large enough that would allow SS and Medicare as we know it today to survive. All I can see is continued cuts in services, who can get on it and when, and what it will cover, to a point when it becomes so irrelevant that it dies under its own weight.

Why can't you see people voting for a tax increase to pay for a program that allows them to survive? It happened in Europe for free education and socialized medicine and in Canada for socialized medicine. Why would you think Americans would be any different if things get to the point where the choice is an awful society with a huge poor class or social services that make being poor more bearable? What aspect of human nature do you believe will prevail? What we've seen in societies like Europe and Canada or the dog eat dog world of South or Latin America?

Why would a program like social security and medicare/medicaid become irrelevant? What aspect of the younger generation makes you think this will be the case? I don't see support for your reasoning. The younger generation is more open to socialized medicine, free education, and legalized drugs than at any point in history. Why do you think Bernie Sanders was a viable candidate?

Or do you mean socialized medicine and European-style social services will replace Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? I can see that occurring and making the programs irrelevant. I believe a move towards systems more like Europe is inevitable and this Trump thing is the last kick of Reagan-style populist conservatism. At least that is how I see it. Trump was voted in by a dying group of older conservatives that lashed out against the youth movement driving liberalism. It will be short-lived as that generation passes on.

[RiverDog]

Why can't you see people voting for a tax increase to pay for a program that allows them to survive? It happened in Europe for free education and socialized medicine and in Canada for socialized medicine. Why would you think Americans would be any different if things get to the point where the choice is an awful society with a huge poor class or social services that make poor more bearable? What aspect of human nature do you believe will prevail? What we've seen in societies like Europe and Canada or the dog eat dog world of South or Latin America?

Why would a program like social security and medicare/medicaid become irrelevant? What aspect of the younger generation makes you think this will be the case? I don't see support for your reasoning. The younger generation is more open to socialized medicine, free education, and legalized drugs than at any point in history. Why do you think Bernie Sanders was a viable candidate?

Or do you mean socialized medicine and European-style social services will replace Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? I can see that occurring and making the programs irrelevant. I believe a move towards systems more like Europe is inevitable and this Trump thing is the last kick of Reagan-style populist conservatism. At least that is how I see it. Trump was voted in by a dying group of older conservatives that lashed out against the youth movement driving liberalism. It will be short-lived as that generation passes on.

Allows "them" to survive?" If it were just people 50 and over voting, then I could see us voting a tax increase to allow "us" to survive.

But I don't see younger people, who think of themselves as immortals, voting to tax themselves to keep those programs alive, and in many ways, I can't blame them. Is it their fault that our government has created a program that is unsustainable without major tax increases and that in their eyes, has very little benefit to them? If we can't get our younger citizens to think far enough ahead to save money for their retirement, I can hardly see them voting to tax themselves for a program that may or may not be there for them when they reach retirement age.

They need to raise the minimum age for Medicare to 67, like they have done with Social Security, and they need to eliminate the early retirement starting at 62 for Social Security. It would not affect current beneficiaries and if they did it right, would give younger workers enough notice to start coming up with alternate plans.

If SS and Medicare is to have any chance of surviving, we need to quit thinking of it as a retirement panacea and start thinking of it as a safety net.

[Aseahawkfan]

Allows "them" to survive?" If it were just people 50 and over voting, then I could see us voting a tax increase to allow "us" to survive.

But I don't see younger people, who think of themselves as immortals, voting to tax themselves to keep those programs alive, and in many ways, I can't blame them. Is it their fault that our government has created a program that is unsustainable without major tax increases and that in their eyes, has very little benefit to them? If we can't get our younger citizens to think far enough ahead to save money for their retirement, I can hardly see them voting to tax themselves for a program that may or may not be there for them when they reach retirement age.

They need to raise the minimum age for Medicare to 67, like they have done with Social Security, and they need to eliminate the early retirement starting at 62 for Social Security. It would not affect current beneficiaries and if they did it right, would give younger workers enough notice to start coming up with alternate plans.

If SS and Medicare is to have any chance of surviving, we need to quit thinking of it as a retirement panacea and start thinking of it as a safety net.

Hmm. I guess I don't see the same thing. The younger generation fueled Bernie Sander's candidacy. They're being taught European-style socio-capitalism is a better way to do things. They want free education and medicine in a fairly large percentage as they are being crushed with student loan debt. Medicine prices are getting insane. The U.S. economy is the primary driver of high medicine prices and huge profits worldwide as we're one of the few first world economies that allows drug and medical device companies to charge huge amounts for their products as most European-style socialist nations cap prices. When you start investing in bio-tech and medical device makers, you get a chance to see the difference in price America pays for a product versus a nation with socialized medicine. It's quite a huge difference.

I guess we'll see. I expect to be paying higher taxes in my 60s due to the younger generation pushing for more socialized services. Job stability is mostly gone. Working for the same company for 20 plus years has become a thing of the past. This kind of instability causes humans to look to the government for stability. This group of millenials isn't exactly the most ambitious or hard working generation I've ever seen. I expect them to be influenced more and more by the foreign styles of government. And immigrants coming here love social services. I actually had an Iraqi complain we didn't give him enough free services and he'd rather be in Germany, where his cousin was given free education, housing, and medicine.

[RiverDog]

Hmm. I guess I don't see the same thing. The younger generation fueled Bernie Sander's candidacy. They're being taught European-style socio-capitalism is a better way to do things. They want free education and medicine in a fairly large percentage as they are being crushed with student loan debt. Medicine prices are getting insane. The U.S. economy is the primary driver of high medicine prices and huge profits worldwide as we're one of the few first world economies that allows drug and medical device companies to charge huge amounts for their products as most European-style socialist nations cap prices. When you start investing in bio-tech and medical device makers, you get a chance to see the difference in price America pays for a product versus a nation with socialized medicine. It's quite a huge difference.

I guess we'll see. I expect to be paying higher taxes in my 60s due to the younger generation pushing for more socialized services. Job stability is mostly gone. Working for the same company for 20 plus years has become a thing of the past. This kind of instability causes humans to look to the government for stability. This group of millenials isn't exactly the most ambitious or hard working generation I've ever seen. I expect them to be influenced more and more by the foreign styles of government. And immigrants coming here love social services. I actually had an Iraqi complain we didn't give him enough free services and he'd rather be in Germany, where his cousin was given free education, housing, and medicine.

Yea, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm basing my opinion off my experiences with Millennials, which includes my kids and many of my co-workers and friends. They are not money savvy and seem to be driven more by immediate self gratification than what I can recall those of my generation displaying when I was in my 20's and 30's. I've complained to my managers that as a company, we are not doing a good job of educating our workers. Many of them have come to me asking advice, a position that I don't feel comfortable being in.

In my opinion, a person that applies to take out a loan on their 401K should be offered some counseling and given some alternatives. Same goes if their contributions are less than a pre determined target. Make them understand, or at least offer them some guidance, on the repercussions down the road. We need to take the same approach to educating our youth about saving for retirement that we've been very successful in doing regarding other voluntary choices they have to make, like trying to keep kids from smoking or doing drugs. If we can't or won't teach them the value of saving for their retirement, I can't see how they can be made to see the benefit of taxing themselves to support SS and Medicare. Heck, I've seen numerous young, single people decline to have taken out of their checks relatively modest premiums for company sponsored health insurance.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I actually had an Iraqi complain we didn't give him enough free services and he'd rather be in Germany, where his cousin was given free education, housing, and medicine.

Did you tell him he should move there, then? I see some merit to the Euro model, but I also wonder if the supporters of such a system have really thought about the constraints that would likely be put on it. My sister lives in France. Aside from it taking her an insanely long time to become a legal citizen with access to their social programs, she told me how they handle "free" education. Secondary school students who wish to go to university on the state's dime have to take exams to qualify. They have to meet acceptable minimums and there are only a finite number of majors; if they miss on either of these, they are out of luck or out of pocket. These students also have to make the grade once they are in, or they lose funding. I believe on a different thread, burrton (maybe) posted an article stating that Britain's medical system was instituting constraints prior to authorize certain types of medical service like requiring patients to lose weight or stop smoking.

That's the wake-up call this voting block is going to get. It won't be unfettered access to housing, medical, and education resources. For a population of our size, which is a glaring contrast to what the Euro nations support under these programs, constraints will be necessary to even have a chance at making them sustainable. These constraints will still leave a situation where others have more, achieve more, etc. while others will feel like they are being left out. I don't know of any system that would eliminate social stratification.

We need to take the same approach to educating our youth about saving for retirement that we've made in other voluntary choices they have to make, like trying to keep kids from smoking or doing drugs. If we can't or won't teach them the value of saving for their retirement, I can't see how they can be made to see the benefit of taxing themselves to support SS and Medicare.

That's an excellent point, River. My Pawpaw always said it doesn't take any smarts to spend money. I'm not sure how you fix this one. Sometimes I think there are just personality types that are good with money and types that are bad with money. I've had to see my siblings go through some hard lessons before they realized what saving and thrift could do for them. If parents don't teach it, then the only place left before they get out in the real world is school. Will they listen even then?

[RiverDog]

That's an excellent point, River. My Pawpaw always said it doesn't take any smarts to spend money. I'm not sure how you fix this one. Sometimes I think there are just personality types that are good with money and types that are bad with money. I've had to see my siblings go through some hard lessons before they realized what saving and thrift could do for them. If parents don't teach it, then the only place left before they get out in the real world is school. Will they listen even then?

Many won't listen, but then again, it's not going to require 100% compliance, either. At the very least, we need to provide them with an opportunity to make informed decisions. If after hearing the options, they decide to buy the nice car or boat vs. contributing to a 401K, then at least they can't complain about being taken by surprised 20 or 30 years down the road.

I have heard that schools are taking on some of the responsibility of educating kids about saving for retirement, but I'm not sure how good or effective it is. It's been awhile since I've had a child in the school system.

Employers need to get involved, too. I know for a fact that my employer could be putting on seminars at no cost to themselves, but there's no motivation for them to do so. There are all sorts of investment counselors that would love to have the opportunity to talk to, and they would do it without using it as a platform to peddle their services.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yea, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm basing my opinion off my experiences with Millennials, which includes my kids and many of my co-workers and friends. They are not money savvy and seem to be driven more by immediate self gratification than what I can recall those of my generation displaying when I was in my 20's and 30's. I've complained to my managers that as a company, we are not doing a good job of educating our workers. Many of them have come to me asking advice, a position that I don't feel comfortable being in.

In my opinion, a person that applies to take out a loan on their 401K should be offered some counseling and given some alternatives. Same goes if their contributions are less than a pre determined target. Make them understand, or at least offer them some guidance, on the repercussions down the road. We need to take the same approach to educating our youth about saving for retirement that we've been very successful in doing regarding other voluntary choices they have to make, like trying to keep kids from smoking or doing drugs. If we can't or won't teach them the value of saving for their retirement, I can't see how they can be made to see the benefit of taxing themselves to support SS and Medicare. Heck, I've seen numerous young, single people decline to have taken out of their checks relatively modest premiums for company sponsored health insurance.

Once again, you make my argument for me. Someone like Bernie Sanders is going to convince Millenials and their kids that taxing themselves will make their lives better...and of course they will tax the rich as well, which will make them happy. Anecdotally, I've asked Millenials if they would be willing to pay higher taxes for free medical services and education and they've said yes at a very high percentage, probably in the 80 or 90 range. If they don't have to worry about medical and education, they likely feel they have more money to spend on instant gratification like video games and phones.

[Aseahawkfan]

Did you tell him he should move there, then? I see some merit to the Euro model, but I also wonder if the supporters of such a system have really thought about the constraints that would likely be put on it. My sister lives in France. Aside from it taking her an insanely long time to become a legal citizen with access to their social programs, she told me how they handle "free" education. Secondary school students who wish to go to university on the state's dime have to take exams to qualify. They have to meet acceptable minimums and there are only a finite number of majors; if they miss on either of these, they are out of luck or out of pocket. These students also have to make the grade once they are in, or they lose funding. I believe on a different thread, burrton (maybe) posted an article stating that Britain's medical system was instituting constraints prior to authorize certain types of medical service like requiring patients to lose weight or stop smoking.

That's the wake-up call this voting block is going to get. It won't be unfettered access to housing, medical, and education resources. For a population of our size, which is a glaring contrast to what the Euro nations support under these programs, constraints will be necessary to even have a chance at making them sustainable. These constraints will still leave a situation where others have more, achieve more, etc. while others will feel like they are being left out. I don't know of any system that would eliminate social stratification.

You need to do this for socialized systems. Then again private systems would charge you higher prices for these negative behaviors if they were allowed. Whether we go private or socialized, negative behaviors will have to paid for and people will make it seem unfair to do so. Make some poor fat slob that can't seem to stop eating McDonald's pay more for his medical and he cries unfair. Socialize the system and make that same poor fat slob lose weight and he cries. It's a damned any way you do it scenario. This generation don't have the steel in their balls to look at some fat schlub and say, "Do this or we're not going to cover you" which is as good as signing their death warrant. Why do you think they trying to get obesity and addiction classified as diseases? They don't want to teach hard lessons in society any more. People want to play with fire and the tax payer gets to pay for the burns because no one seems to want to make the burned person suffer too much.

[RiverDog]

Once again, you make my argument for me. Someone like Bernie Sanders is going to convince Millenials and their kids that taxing themselves will make their lives better...and of course they will tax the rich as well, which will make them happy. Anecdotally, I've asked Millenials if they would be willing to pay higher taxes for free medical services and education and they've said yes at a very high percentage, probably in the 80 or 90 range. If they don't have to worry about medical and education, they likely feel they have more money to spend on instant gratification like video games and phones.

If Obama couldn't get them to sign up for insurance w/o making it mandatory, how are they going convince them to go in the voting booth and vote themselves a tax increase? Heck, most don't even see the value of voting. Older people, which are going to be in defense of the status quo, are much more likely to vote than are the younger generation.

In fact, millennials continue to have the lowest voter turnout of any age group. Only about 46 percent voted in the last presidential election (2012); compared to 72 percent of the Silent Generation, who habitually punch above their weight.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/47823788 ... ually-vote

Besides, rather than convincing our younger generation to tax themselves, I'd rather that they convince them to abolish SS and Medicare and offer them viable private programs and let them save on their own for their retirement.

[Aseahawkfan]

If Obama couldn't get them to sign up for insurance w/o making it mandatory, how are they going convince them to go in the voting booth and vote themselves a tax increase? Heck, most don't even see the value of voting. Older people, which are going to be in defense of the status quo, are much more likely to vote than are the younger generation.

In fact, millennials continue to have the lowest voter turnout of any age group. Only about 46 percent voted in the last presidential election (2012); compared to 72 percent of the Silent Generation, who habitually punch above their weight.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/47823788 ... ually-vote

Besides, rather than convincing our younger generation to tax themselves, I'd rather that they convince them to abolish SS and Medicare and offer them viable private programs and let them save on their own for their retirement.

Has there ever been a young generation in history that voted more than older people? I'm asking because I don't know.

Millenials will age. If they maintain their socialist inclinations, things will change just like the younger generation voted in legal weed.

I don't know, RD. I don't know that I trust companies to deliver old people and the disabled medicare/medicaid. The profit motive can lead to bad outcomes in medicine in my opinion. I almost prefer a socialized medical system with the profit motive removed. I always think, "What does medicine profit from?" The answer I come to is sickness. Using the profit model of every business, what would make medicine more profitable: selling people on as much sickness as possible. More sickness, means more profits from medications and services. The profit motive discourages medical companies from wanting people to be well. It encourages the creation of sickness, sometimes sickness from nothing. I believe the drive for antidepressants and other mental issue medications is driven more by the profit motive than true issues with humans. The medical industry is doing their best to find a pill or medication for everything.

I feel we could socialize the system, remove the profit motive, and focus a certain percentage of cash for profitable research rather than the system we're using now with vastly overpriced drugs and medical services.

If I could trust companies not to seek the highest possible profits at all times, then I would support a private system. I don't trust humans when engaged in seeking profits. The ability of humanity to justify just about anything when pursuing the almighty dollar causes me to mistrust doctors. I may vote for Socialized medicine if given the opportunity. I'd rather have equal delivery absent the profit motive. I don't care for this over-medicated group. I'd rather have a board like Great Britain's forcing people to lose weight and eat healthy. I'd even support taxing people that smoke cigarettes, drink too much alcohol, or do drugs. I'd use the tax system to make people pay. If you don't maintain a healthy weight, exercise, and avoid dangerous activities, then you pay a higher tax into the medical pool. I'd actually be ok with this over having to worry about if my doctor is trying to stuff as many pills as possible in me to make more money.

[idhawkman]

I don't know, RD. I don't know that I trust companies to deliver old people and the disabled medicare/medicaid. The profit motive can lead to bad outcomes in medicine in my opinion. I almost prefer a socialized medical system with the profit motive removed. I always think, "What does medicine profit from?" The answer I come to is sickness. Using the profit model of every business, what would make medicine more profitable: selling people on as much sickness as possible. More sickness, means more profits from medications and services. The profit motive discourages medical companies from wanting people to be well. It encourages the creation of sickness, sometimes sickness from nothing. I believe the drive for antidepressants and other mental issue medications is driven more by the profit motive than true issues with humans. The medical industry is doing their best to find a pill or medication for everything.

Asea, I sure don't ever want socialized medicine here. I've been to countries where they had the socialized medicine. A friend of mine's mother died waiting 7.5 hours for an ambulance to arrive since there was no motivation to show up early.

On my way to the airport in Leningrad, my taxi hit a kid that was aobut 6 years old - broke his femur right in half. We waited there for over an hour and a half for an ambulance to arrive.

I've seen the spirit snatched right out of people because of socialism and socialized programs. I never want to see that here no matter what.

[burrrton]

Your healthcare system on Socialism:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10 ... ers-obese/

[RiverDog]

Has there ever been a young generation in history that voted more than older people? I'm asking because I don't know.

Millenials will age. If they maintain their socialist inclinations, things will change just like the younger generation voted in legal weed.

I don't know, RD. I don't know that I trust companies to deliver old people and the disabled medicare/medicaid. The profit motive can lead to bad outcomes in medicine in my opinion. I almost prefer a socialized medical system with the profit motive removed. I always think, "What does medicine profit from?" The answer I come to is sickness. Using the profit model of every business, what would make medicine more profitable: selling people on as much sickness as possible. More sickness, means more profits from medications and services. The profit motive discourages medical companies from wanting people to be well. It encourages the creation of sickness, sometimes sickness from nothing. I believe the drive for antidepressants and other mental issue medications is driven more by the profit motive than true issues with humans. The medical industry is doing their best to find a pill or medication for everything.

I feel we could socialize the system, remove the profit motive, and focus a certain percentage of cash for profitable research rather than the system we're using now with vastly overpriced drugs and medical services.

If I could trust companies not to seek the highest possible profits at all times, then I would support a private system. I don't trust humans when engaged in seeking profits. The ability of humanity to justify just about anything when pursuing the almighty dollar causes me to mistrust doctors. I may vote for Socialized medicine if given the opportunity. I'd rather have equal delivery absent the profit motive. I don't care for this over-medicated group. I'd rather have a board like Great Britain's forcing people to lose weight and eat healthy. I'd even support taxing people that smoke cigarettes, drink too much alcohol, or do drugs. I'd use the tax system to make people pay. If you don't maintain a healthy weight, exercise, and avoid dangerous activities, then you pay a higher tax into the medical pool. I'd actually be ok with this over having to worry about if my doctor is trying to stuff as many pills as possible in me to make more money.

There's always been a certain segment of the younger generation that doesn't think about their long term future, and you're right, they do change as they get older and are faced with their own mortality. I've had experience with 3 generations: Baby boomers (my generation), Gen X, and Millenials, and IMO Millenials are by far worse at caring about their future. I really don't have any proof or reference other than my own experiences, but I do recognize the fact that every generation complains about the previous one, so who knows.

As far as trusting companies goes, yes, they are always going to go after the highest possible profit, and that's not a sin, it's the basic principle of capitalism. As long as the labor market is not overwhelmed, and with our historically low unemployment rate it's currently not, successful companies will be the ones that attract and retain good employees. One diference between Millenials and previous generations is that they are more likely to change companies several times before they find the right one, so if they would prioritize things like 401K's and health care plans in their job searches, companies will offer competitive benefits.

But if the government gets out of the health care business and passes it along to the private sector, there is going to have to be some sort of government oversight, similar to minimum wage or pension regulations, to insure that they'll always cover their employees to a predetermined standard. It would also prevent companies from doing stuff like what you mentioned about the Brits.

Anyhow, it's just my thoughts on the matter. I do not claim to have all the answers. All I know is that the current system is doomed.

[Aseahawkfan]

Asea, I sure don't ever want socialized medicine here. I've been to countries where they had the socialized medicine. A friend of mine's mother died waiting 7.5 hours for an ambulance to arrive since there was no motivation to show up early.

On my way to the airport in Leningrad, my taxi hit a kid that was aobut 6 years old - broke his femur right in half. We waited there for over an hour and a half for an ambulance to arrive.

I've seen the spirit snatched right out of people because of socialism and socialized programs. I never want to see that here no matter what.

Do you think this happens in Germany or Britain? I'd like to know. Technology and manpower can make any system bad including capitalist systems. You could be in a strongly capitalist system in a poor nation and receive just as bad of service.

The military is socialized in America. they operate at a very high level and are very effective. Our police are socialized. Our fire department is socialized. Our bureaucracy is socialized. Our education system is socialized. Not all work perfectly, but private companies don't either. You can have effective socialized programs. You have to build a certain ethic into the system for it to work.

Fact is every modern society is a combination of socialism and capitalism including America. That combination is the best way to do things as far as experience shows. There are effective socialized medical systems in the world. The assumption they are all the same and all failures is wrong information. I think we Americans can come up with a more effective system where wellness is the primary drive rather than putting people on as many revenue streams as possible in a profit driven system. if all the medical community looks at you as is a way to gain revenue, I don't see how that is any better than waiting for an ambulance for 7.5 hours. I'm pretty sure we could pull as many horror stories about unnecessary procedures and many other such things in a profit driven medical system.

[Aseahawkfan]

Your healthcare system on Socialism:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10 ... ers-obese/

And this is bad why? If you're obese or a smoker, you should have to accept some kind of penalty. In a capitalist society, vastly higher insurance rates. In a socialist system, ban from surgery. Either way if you're obese or a smoker, you're a liability.

[burrrton]

And this is bad why?

And the mask slips.

Your healthcare system on Socialism, everyone. Thank, asea.

[idhawkman]

Do you think this happens in Germany or Britain? I'd like to know.

Absolutely it does. That's why so many Canadians and Brits come here for their surgeries. It takes too long for them to get done in the rest of the world.

[RiverDog]

And this is bad why? If you're obese or a smoker, you should have to accept some kind of penalty. In a capitalist society, vastly higher insurance rates. In a socialist system, ban from surgery. Either way if you're obese or a smoker, you're a liability.

Don't speak of obesity and smoking as if they are one and the same, they are two completely different problems. Smoking is done 100% by choice. An obese condition is not nearly that voluntary.

In principle, I agree with placing some sort of a preminum on those activities that involve known risks, such as smoking. But it should be reflective of the increase in overall costs to the remainder of the participants and not in the form of penalty. Otherwise, the government is acting as a moral police or a mother hen and we'd be embarking down a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be applying a health tax on chocolate cake and ribeye steaks.

The other problem is attributing a condition as having come from a particular activity. My dad died 2 days before his 60th birthday, of lung cancer. He was completely convinced that his condition was self inflicted, but his physician told him that the type of cancer he had was the same type of lung cancer aquired by non smokers, too. So who's to say that he would or wouldn't have aquired the disease had he not been a smoker?

[Aseahawkfan]

Don't speak of obesity and smoking as if they are one and the same, they are two completely different problems. Smoking is done 100% by choice. An obese condition is not nearly that voluntary.

In principle, I agree with placing some sort of a preminum on those activities that involve known risks, such as smoking. But it should be reflective of the increase in overall costs to the remainder of the participants and not in the form of penalty. Otherwise, the government is acting as a moral police or a mother hen and we'd be embarking down a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be applying a health tax on chocolate cake and ribeye steaks.

The other problem is attributing a condition as having come from a particular activity. My dad died 2 days before his 60th birthday, of lung cancer. He was completely convinced that his condition was self inflicted, but his physician told him that the type of cancer he had was the same type of lung cancer aquired by non smokers, too. So who's to say that he would or wouldn't have aquired the disease had he not been a smoker?

How is obesity for the vast majority of people not a voluntary condition? You overeat, you get obese.

It doesn't matter, RD. If you smoke or engage in unhealthy activities or have an unhealthy condition, you cost more. Whether that cost is absorbed through higher premiums after analysis or managed differently in a socialized medicine scenario, either way the cost must accounted for and absorbed in some fashion. Insurance companies used to refuse coverage for such things or charge a much higher premium much like car insurance companies do for bad drivers. Socialized medicine has other means for encouraging healthy behaviors.

[Aseahawkfan]

Absolutely it does. That's why so many Canadians and Brits come here for their surgeries. It takes too long for them to get done in the rest of the world.

I meant the late ambulances. We all know about the waiting for surgeries to be approved. They do pay cheaper amounts for medications. I wonder what the wait times are for common surgeries.

[RiverDog]

How is obesity for the vast majority of people not a voluntary condition? You overeat, you get obese.

Although overeating and a poor diet are by far the leading causes, there are genetic and environmental reasons for obesity. It's clearly different than smoking, which has no genetic connection at all.

Obesity tends to run in families, and I'm not going to hang being overweight on some poor kid who's parents taught them poor eating habits and not providing them with a healthy diet.

I also believe, without any facts to back up my belief, that there are certain parts of our body chemistry that for one reason or another, does not tell us when we are full or gives us false signals that tell us we are hungry when our body isn't needing any caloric intake. Not many people want to be fat.

If you're interested, here's a good discussion about obesity:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20375742

[RiverDog]

It doesn't matter, RD. If you smoke or engage in unhealthy activities or have an unhealthy condition, you cost more. Whether that cost is absorbed through higher premiums after analysis or managed differently in a socialized medicine scenario, either way the cost must accounted for and absorbed in some fashion. Insurance companies used to refuse coverage for such things or charge a much higher premium much like car insurance companies do for bad drivers. Socialized medicine has other means for encouraging healthy behaviors.

There's a means for measuring poor drivers, and it's called traffic tickets and accidents. I can also accept age, sex, or location as a means of adjusting auto insurance preminums as they are based on a non biased mathematical model. That I don't have a problem with.

But how are you going to adminster a penalty, tax, or whatever, on smoking and overeating? Do you want the government knowing what and how much you eat 24/7? Or are you going to require a weigh in every 6 months and base it off a BMI?

[burrrton]

Your healthcare when you get the f*ck away from Socialism, everyone:

https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/254 ... -Her-Spine

[burrrton]

Do you want the government knowing what and how much you eat 24/7? Or are you going to require a weigh in every 6 months and base it off a BMI?

"You're damn right we do." -The government when they're covering all health care costs.

[jshawaii22]

Since this is a post on the "Tax Bill" I'll throw my 2cents in as a homeowner in Hawaii and a business owner. I LOVE IT!!!!
Keeps the mortgage deduction at a level where you can buy a house in the islands, which is about 1 million and up. We could of been smashed and seen the housing market crash real quick.
Keeps most of the State Property and Income Tax deductions.
Keeps the medical deductions for employees and owners.
Keeps the Section 179 Depreciation Deductions (the best thing in my lifetime to build a successful business)
and supposedly, although I can't find it, it throws in a 25% yearly tax credit for pass-through businesses (anyone except a "C" Corp) --

This bill is setup for parents, business owners, home-owners, all American's who don't itemize and yes, the 'rich' but compared to what first came out...it's night and day.

This Friday I had a end-of-year meeting with all my employees and they were all smiles when I told them they will get to keep a whole lot more of their wages, with the standard deduction doubling, employees should see $$$, once the IRS releases the new tax brackets.

This is the first thing Trump's done that makes sense as a economic move. No comment on the other 95%

[Aseahawkfan]

There's a means for measuring poor drivers, and it's called traffic tickets and accidents. I can also accept age, sex, or location as a means of adjusting auto insurance preminums as they are based on a non biased mathematical model. That I don't have a problem with.

But how are you going to adminster a penalty, tax, or whatever, on smoking and overeating? Do you want the government knowing what and how much you eat 24/7? Or are you going to require a weigh in every 6 months and base it off a BMI?

Smoking is already taxed in the price of cigarettes. Vice taxes are easy.

I would tax the living hell out of bad foods to pay for medicine. You want to eat a hot dog? 10% additional tax. You want potato chips cooked in oil and salt? 10% additional tax. You want to fatty meat? 10% additional tax. I would create a strong financial incentive to eat healthy.

I would do the penalty tax during the yearly physical which would be required. The tax would be on the individual and the parents of children who were obese. I would do it myself based on waist size like Japan and an overall measure of physical health according to blood tests.

Riverdog, you tell me what you do when the government refuses to let the bad choices fall on the people make them. You're telling me government managed medical care isn't going to last. There's no way the nation lets it go given how many people use it. Do you like general taxation with your money going to things you don't do like taking care of obese people sitting around an apartment rotting away? Or taking care of drug addicts that knew better than to take the drugs? How do you make the costs fall harder on the people making the bad decisions?

I don't do drugs. I don't drink alcohol. I invest and manage my money tightly not living beyond my means. I pay my car off quickly. About my only vice is overeating and I"m getting control of that and cutting weight. And no one can pull the total horsecrap card on me of growing up in a good home. I grew up poor from a broken home with addict parents. I chose not to follow their path because it was fairly obvious those types of behaviors have negative outcomes with no positives. Yet I'm told by some of these young folk that ghetto kids can't help but do crime or drugsbecause you know, they're poor. And some fat people are sad, so they can't help being fat. And other such BS stories.

I'd be glad to go to a system of personal accountability if I thought the government would actually do it, but that attitude doesn't win votes does it. Once the entitled generation figures out their poor planning left them in a bad way, along with the liberal system that taught them it's not their fault, and I bet they'll tax whoever they can to pay for their bad choices. I work around so many of these cream puff young folks that I expect that over-medicated (both by doctors and self-medication) group to go down hard as they age. Parenting skills are crap. The men are feminized and run by women. The women think any man that tries to teach their male children to be men is bad and they browbeat them until they stop. This coddled generation needs to be managed because their parents never taught them that life isn't fair and you need to work to have even the most moderate of lives.

Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but that's what I see around these people. I have no faith that the payments for these people will be paid by the people that are making the bad choices. Instead I feel like I'll be getting slammed with taxes and attacks on my assets to pay for them if we don't put in place a system that makes the bad actors pay for their decisions.