The shrewdly drawn-up big ugly bill...

Fantine · Tuesday at 7:15 PM

I was--and am--very opposed to the big ugly bill. Throwing 15-20 million off Medicaid is immoral. Ending energy tax credits--and in the Senate, actually putting on a surcharge, will exacerbate climactic disasters, air pollution, and hurt farmers through droughts and temperature differences.
Billionaires don't know what to do with their money. The good ones give it to worthy causes--whether they are athletes, actors, or businessmen. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are giving away everything they have over 20 years, but they and their descendants will still enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle.Some, however, are unable to feel joy from their good fortune,and many become addicted to power and control.

And when it was passed, I was horrified to see that it was ingeniously engineered. Social Security beneficiaries (getting their return on investment) will get an extra $6,000 tax exemption. Currently, 36% of Social Security beneficiaries have to pay income taxes on part of their Social Security benefits. With this additional $6,000 tax exemption ($12K for couples), only 12% will still have to pay income taxes on part or all of their Social Security benefits.

My husband and I will be part of the 12%, but the $12K exemption will protect an additional $12K of our Social Security benefits from taxation. And guess what? More Social Security beneficiaries will get this windfall--the extra senior exemption--than people who will lose Medicaid.

For lower income people with Social Security benefits, of course, they won't win or lose anything--it's the higher income Social Security beneficiaries they are trying to impress.

Then of course there is the "no taxes on tips" provision--seen as a windfall for service workers. But TBT, most service workers don't pay very much in taxes to begin with. And when customers have the expectation that these employees are getting a tax windfall, many will adjust their tipping habits downward.

A study showed in 2021 54% of diners tipped 20% or more. Now only 36% do. And that's due to every Starbucks and fast food employees having "tip" listed on invoices. In Florida we stopped at a Steak and Shake. We had to order on a machine. We had to get our own drinks and put away our trash. The employees handed us a tray that we walked up to the counter to get. What kind of tippable service did they perform?

My rule of thumb is if employees are getting paid minimum wage or more I don't tip, maybe a buck. That covers fast food. Subminimum wage workers in restaurants always get 20%. My hairdresser and nail technician always get more than 20%, because we have a relationship and I want to give them something extra. But I know that if some people feel their server is getting tax-free money, they will tip less.

This is long-winded, and the neediest people are being terribly hurt by these provisions. But by the devious engineering of this bill, more people will benefit. In the case of Social Security, the "haves" will have more, and income inequality will increase.

I don't have high hopes for tipped workers, because I know human nature.

Richard T · 2025-07-02T03:29:36-0500

Fantine said:
I was--and am--very opposed to the big ugly bill. Throwing 15-20 million off Medicaid is immoral. Ending energy tax credits--and in the Senate, actually putting on a surcharge, will exacerbate climactic disasters, air pollution, and hurt farmers through droughts and temperature differences.
Billionaires don't know what to do with their money. The good ones give it to worthy causes--whether they are athletes, actors, or businessmen. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are giving away everything they have over 20 years, but they and their descendants will still enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle.Some, however, are unable to feel joy from their good fortune,and many become addicted to power and control.

And when it was passed, I was horrified to see that it was ingeniously engineered. Social Security beneficiaries (getting their return on investment) will get an extra $6,000 tax exemption. Currently, 36% of Social Security beneficiaries have to pay income taxes on part of their Social Security benefits. With this additional $6,000 tax exemption ($12K for couples), only 12% will still have to pay income taxes on part or all of their Social Security benefits.

My husband and I will be part of the 12%, but the $12K exemption will protect an additional $12K of our Social Security benefits from taxation. And guess what? More Social Security beneficiaries will get this windfall--the extra senior exemption--than people who will lose Medicaid.

For lower income people with Social Security benefits, of course, they won't win or lose anything--it's the higher income Social Security beneficiaries they are trying to impress.

Then of course there is the "no taxes on tips" provision--seen as a windfall for service workers. But TBT, most service workers don't pay very much in taxes to begin with. And when customers have the expectation that these employees are getting a tax windfall, many will adjust their tipping habits downward.

A study showed in 2021 54% of diners tipped 20% or more. Now only 36% do. And that's due to every Starbucks and fast food employees having "tip" listed on invoices. In Florida we stopped at a Steak and Shake. We had to order on a machine. We had to get our own drinks and put away our trash. The employees handed us a tray that we walked up to the counter to get. What kind of tippable service did they perform?

My rule of thumb is if employees are getting paid minimum wage or more I don't tip, maybe a buck. That covers fast food. Subminimum wage workers in restaurants always get 20%. My hairdresser and nail technician always get more than 20%, because we have a relationship and I want to give them something extra. But I know that if some people feel their server is getting tax-free money, they will tip less.

This is long-winded, and the neediest people are being terribly hurt by these provisions. But by the devious engineering of this bill, more people will benefit. In the case of Social Security, the "haves" will have more, and income inequality will increase.

I don't have high hopes for tipped workers, because I know human nature.

You list some good points that i agree with. The elephant in this bill is it increases the deficits. So more interest, more crowding out people of getting a decent interest rate are sure to follow. I hate too that projections can be way off. The Gop projections from the clinton surplus were way underestimated, and soon the surplus was gone in around two years. The term tax cuts are baaically a fraud unless you die before the bill is due. It is tax deferment, money shifted to those who live to pay in future years plus interest. But enjoy it while it lasts. Just dont bw shocked when the deficits far exceed most projections. Yes, i and others could be wrong to rain on this debt party. However it goes against the bible and even good common sense.

ozso · 2025-07-02T07:02:19-0500

They're not throwing people off Medicaid. They're tightening loose requirements. In other words those who don't really qualify for Medicaid aren't going to get it any longer.

hedrick · 2025-07-02T07:15:23-0500

ozso said:
They're not throwing people off Medicaid. They're tightening loose requirements. In other words those who don't really qualify for Medicaid aren't going to get it any longer.

As Arkansas' experience shows, in practice they're adding a lot of red tape. Some of the savings will be from people who aren't working, but a lot will be from people who won't be able to get through the red tape.

wing2000 · 2025-07-02T07:20:31-0500

hedrick said:
As Arkansas' experience shows, in practice they're adding a lot of red tape. Some of the savings will be from people who aren't working, but a lot will be from people who won't be able to get through the red tape.

...and implementing the red tape will consume more of our tax dollars. A task that I'm guessing will fall on the states to enforce.

ozso · 2025-07-02T07:37:19-0500

hedrick said:
As Arkansas' experience shows, in practice they're adding a lot of red tape. Some of the savings will be from people who aren't working, but a lot will be from people who won't be able to get through the red tape.

There's probably a big problem with it being too easy to get away with Medicaid fraud.

hedrick · 2025-07-02T08:01:15-0500

ozso said:
There's probably a big problem with it being too easy to get away with Medicaid fraud.

How do you know? Adding more red tape doesn't deal with fraud. You deal with fraud by adding staff to inspectors (rather than firing them as Trump did), and looking carefully at your prcesses to improve them. The BBB will force states to come up with new systems to document work, with tight deadlines. This is not a situation that is likely to improve accuracy. They'll be stuggline to make sure benefits get out. If the concern is fraud, you put good analysts to work on the process, and pay attention to reports of inspectors on the type of fraud you've been seeing. But that's not a flashy thing you can trumpet as a political accomplishment.

Fantine · 2025-07-02T08:22:26-0500

ozso said:
They're not throwing people off Medicaid. They're tightening loose requirements. In other words those who don't really qualify for Medicaid aren't going to get it any longer.

They are changing the rules in order to throw people off, no matter how you slice it.

ozso · 2025-07-02T08:23:08-0500

hedrick said:
How do you know?

I said probably, not definitely

hedrick said:
Adding more red tape doesn't deal with fraud. You deal with fraud by adding staff to inspectors (rather than firing them as Trump did), and looking carefully at your prcesses to improve them. The BBB will force states to come up with new systems to document work, with tight deadlines. This is not a situation that is likely to improve accuracy. They'll be stuggline to make sure benefits get out. If the concern is fraud, you put good analysts to work on the process, and pay attention to reports of inspectors on the type of fraud you've been seeing. But that's not a flashy thing you can trumpet as a political accomplishment.

Red tape is a vague term. What does red tape consist of other than the types of things you described above?

ozso · 2025-07-02T08:25:08-0500

Fantine said:
They are changing the rules in order to throw people off, no matter how you slice it.

So people who don't or shouldn't qualify for it should be kept on it?

Fantine · 2025-07-02T08:37:36-0500

ozso said:
So people who don't or shouldn't qualify for it should be kept on it?

They qualified for it. I don't think that leaders who were born with silver spoons in their mouths and who are promoting the idea that empathy is a vice should decide who should qualify. Let the president walk a marathon in their shoes and become educated about the challenges most people face in life.

ozso · 2025-07-02T08:56:15-0500

Fantine said:
They qualified for it. I don't think that leaders who were born with silver spoons in their mouths and who are promoting the idea that empathy is a vice should decide who should qualify. Let the president walk a marathon in their shoes and become educated about the challenges most people face in life.

Yes they qualified for it, but should they have? That's the question. I don't see how empathy is exhibited in giving welfare to those who shouldn't qualify for it, as opposed to those who should. It seems to me that the word "empathy" has been redefined as "give people whatever they want".

Fantine · 2025-07-02T09:01:55-0500

ozso said:
Yes they qualified for it, but should they have? That's the question. I don't see how empathy is exhibited in giving welfare to those who shouldn't qualify for it, as opposed to those who should. It seems to me that the word "empathy" has been redefined as "give people whatever they want".

Let me reiterate. That decision should not be made by people who were born with silver spoons in their mouths who never experienced a moment of deprivation in their lives.

7thKeeper · 2025-07-02T09:12:44-0500

ozso said:
Yes they qualified for it, but should they have? That's the question. I don't see how empathy is exhibited in giving welfare to those who shouldn't qualify for it, as opposed to those who should. It seems to me that the word "empathy" has been redefined as "give people whatever they want".

Aaah, the American way of healthcare. Deny it to as many as possible. You've learned well from insurance companies over there.

ozso · 2025-07-02T09:19:35-0500

Fantine said:
Let me reiterate. That decision should not be made by people who were born with silver spoons in their mouths who never experienced a moment of deprivation in their lives.

So instead of doctors, analysts, law makers, politicians etc, the decision making should be left up to who exactly?

7thKeeper · 2025-07-02T09:24:50-0500

ozso said:
So instead of doctors, analysts, law makers, politicians etc, the decision making should be left up to who exactly?

Yeah, I don't think doctors had any voice in the matter here, so not sure why you're trying to invoke them here to try and validate your opinion.

RocksInMyHead · 2025-07-02T09:59:31-0500

ozso said:
Yes they qualified for it, but should they have? That's the question. I don't see how empathy is exhibited in giving welfare to those who shouldn't qualify for it, as opposed to those who should. It seems to me that the word "empathy" has been redefined as "give people whatever they want".

The sticky wicket here is "shouldn't". That's a purely subjective evaluation. I don't think you'll find many people who say that we should give welfare benefits to people who "shouldn't" qualify for them. But you'll find a very broad spread of definitions for who exactly that would encompass.

7thKeeper · 2025-07-02T11:50:21-0500

ozso said:
If I do some research into healthcare in Finland, am I going to find that it's perfect and no one has any complaints about it?

Of course not. There's no such thing as a perfect system. But the aim definitely isn't to deny care to people.

Edit: But it's funny that you immediately went for "perfect" as the baseline. No one's complaining that the US healthcare system isn't perfect.

7thKeeper · 2025-07-02T11:51:09-0500

ozso said:
Doctors play a primary role in Medicaid qualification.

Not in writing what those qualifications are, which is what we're taking about.

Pommer · 2025-07-02T12:09:15-0500

RocksInMyHead said:
The sticky wicket here is "shouldn't". That's a purely subjective evaluation. I don't think you'll find many people who say that we should give welfare benefits to people who "shouldn't" qualify for them. But you'll find a very broad spread of definitions for who exactly that would encompass.

The “work requirement” seems odd.
You can qualify if you work, but be sure not to take a job that pays so much that it disqualifies you financially.

Charming

The shrewdly drawn-up big ugly bill...

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

✦

Senior Veteran

E pluribus unum

✦

Senior Veteran

Dona Quixote

✦

✦

Dona Quixote

✦

Dona Quixote

Venture life, Burn your Dread

✦

Venture life, Burn your Dread

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Venture life, Burn your Dread

Venture life, Burn your Dread

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Similar threads