Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority  

Go Back   Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority > General Sports > Debate Forum

Hello Guest!
Take a minute to register, It's 100% FREE! What are you waiting for?
Register Now
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 11-08-17, 10:04 AM
Arrogate Arrogate is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-27-16
Location: Not in Price Hill
Posts: 4,902
Arrogate is on a distinguished road
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...ver-reductions
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 11-08-17, 10:05 AM
Arrogate Arrogate is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-27-16
Location: Not in Price Hill
Posts: 4,902
Arrogate is on a distinguished road
Is it true this will add 1.5 trillion to our national debt? Read it somewhere but there was no source to the claim

I figure well versed people like swm may have accurate info on this
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 11-08-17, 04:44 PM
19AL63 19AL63 is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 03-21-11
Posts: 2,303
19AL63 is on a distinguished road
For the 8 years that Obama was President the policy was spend spend spend and not worry about the debt. Now that Trump wants to change the tax code and give tax breaks all you hear is this will increase the debt. Nobody seem to worry about this when it was spend spend spend by the Democrats.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 11-08-17, 05:19 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 18,040
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogate View Post
Is it true this will add 1.5 trillion to our national debt? Read it somewhere but there was no source to the claim

I figure well versed people like swm may have accurate info on this
A lot of the "calculations" are SWAGs at what may happen, that's why you can find so many opinions about the real impact any given policy will have. $1.5T is probably correct over a 10 year period IF other legislation isn't considered and isn't passed.

As an example, Obamascam was projected to narrow deficits and result in a reduction of the national debt, it's done everything but that. Deficits have narrowed somewhat, but that's been more about other spending than spending on health insurance and health care. Obamascam is running a deficit now, imagine if they hit their goals for participation (about twice as many as current enrollees) and we doubled or more likely tripled the Obamascam deficits.

We could kill Obamascam today and save nearly $20B in Medicaid spending (Medicaid was expanded to people at 133% of poverty in 31 states), and $100B in actual ACA subsidies. But you'd have to also cut the taxes put into place to finance the ACA (currently those amount to $85B), the additional Medicaid tax ($13B). So the net would be a surplus of $22B annually (opposite of the current Obamascam deficit). So no you wouldn't necessarily add to the deficit AND you would allow the people that earned the money to keep nearly $120B.

We could end deficits if we cut spending. Unfortunately we elect cowards that have no problem buying power with other people's money. Congress could close down the federal departments of education, housing, etc. and return those responsibilities to the cities and states. They could cap Medicaid (since it is a federal/state hybrid) and let the individual states decide how much they want to tax and spend. How would the states manage education costs for college if people in Nevada weren't subsidizing colleges in Maine, or there was no grant money from the feds to cover shortcomings in state funding? Imagine NYC having to take care of their own problems without taking money from Montana and Idaho. How much would DeBlasio tax New Yorkers to build a socialist utopia?

Last edited by SWMCinci; 11-08-17 at 08:36 PM. Reason: Double-checked the numbers, bad math.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11-08-17, 07:54 PM
Arrogate Arrogate is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-27-16
Location: Not in Price Hill
Posts: 4,902
Arrogate is on a distinguished road
From what I have read I like a lot of it. However the part that affects me is the graduate student deal. My wife is finishing her PhD at Texas A+M and it will cost me more m money. Unless changes are made at universities for grad students this may kill research at public institutions.

Basically her stipend and the cost of her tuition will count as her income. With me making roughly 55k a year that will cost me around a good bit more in taxes.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 11-08-17, 08:53 PM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 25,076
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogate View Post
From what I have read I like a lot of it. However the part that affects me is the graduate student deal. My wife is finishing her PhD at Texas A+M and it will cost me more m money. Unless changes are made at universities for grad students this may kill research at public institutions.

Basically her stipend and the cost of her tuition will count as her income. With me making roughly 55k a year that will cost me around a good bit more in taxes.
Won't this at least in part be offset by the much larger individual deduction?
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11-08-17, 08:59 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 18,040
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogate View Post
From what I have read I like a lot of it. However the part that affects me is the graduate student deal. My wife is finishing her PhD at Texas A+M and it will cost me more m money. Unless changes are made at universities for grad students this may kill research at public institutions.

Basically her stipend and the cost of her tuition will count as her income. With me making roughly 55k a year that will cost me around a good bit more in taxes.
This is why nibbling around the edges without REALLY changing our tax codes and philosophy hurts us. Deductions and credits help, but we solve the problem by actually lowering taxes realistically and then cutting spending.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11-08-17, 09:29 PM
Arrogate Arrogate is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-27-16
Location: Not in Price Hill
Posts: 4,902
Arrogate is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotr10 View Post
Won't this at least in part be offset by the much larger individual deduction?
I'm not sure to be honest. However I thhink adding 40k to my income won't be a benefit to me. Also it could hurt her potential career if she wanted to enter academia, would be tougher to get grad students accepting vast amounts of debt and getting bent over on taxes. They already get a small stipend that doesn't cover much. However she may go to into private sector at AllTech. As i said I am for a lot of tax reform, specifically tax breaks for corporations and the top percentage of tax payers. However some small fringe aspects of this could negatively affect me. Is it selfish you bet, I am putting myself ahead of others.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11-08-17, 09:29 PM
tom 48 tom 48 is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 10-12-06
Posts: 4,595
tom 48 will become famous soon enough
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-cut-an...st-15-trillion
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 11-08-17, 10:37 PM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 32,557
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neopolitan View Post
Christ



Dollars in, dollars out. Not too terribly difficult to figure out.
Nobody knocks down the cost for a room or procedure or a drug like Medicare/Medicaid - and even more so before any privatization. One cannot ignore that without being deceptive.

Hospital systems love Medicare in that this one source often provides enough revenue to cover all of the expenses, but they also hate them because they tell you what the fair price is. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations holds the keys to that huge pot of money, and as such should be appreciated for enforcing safety compliance and the remediation of detrimental conditions that many administrators might leave unaddressed otherwise. Money talks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neopolitan View Post
Easy to see how Obama got you all riled up with the Romney's accurate "47%" statement. No wonder you voted to reelect the worst President of the last 100 years.
So, again you fall to your default position ?

Obviously, you've got nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 11-08-17, 10:39 PM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 32,557
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogate View Post
From what I have read I like a lot of it. However the part that affects me is the graduate student deal. My wife is finishing her PhD at Texas A+M and it will cost me more m money. Unless changes are made at universities for grad students this may kill research at public institutions.

Basically her stipend and the cost of her tuition will count as her income. With me making roughly 55k a year that will cost me around a good bit more in taxes.
What is she researching ?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-08-17, 10:44 PM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 32,557
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogate View Post
I'm not sure to be honest. However I thhink adding 40k to my income won't be a benefit to me. Also it could hurt her potential career if she wanted to enter academia, would be tougher to get grad students accepting vast amounts of debt and getting bent over on taxes. They already get a small stipend that doesn't cover much. However she may go to into private sector at AllTech. As i said I am for a lot of tax reform, specifically tax breaks for corporations and the top percentage of tax payers. However some small fringe aspects of this could negatively affect me. Is it selfish you bet, I am putting myself ahead of others.
It's^ very a popular perspective. Quite common.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-08-17, 11:25 PM
Arrogate Arrogate is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-27-16
Location: Not in Price Hill
Posts: 4,902
Arrogate is on a distinguished road
I mean I am going to look outnfor my and my family's best interest. It actually has been bugging me ethically as to how I should feel about this.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-08-17, 11:27 PM
Arrogate Arrogate is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-27-16
Location: Not in Price Hill
Posts: 4,902
Arrogate is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabezadecaballo View Post
What is she researching ?
Equine science, specifically nutrition and physiology. A lot of what she does is being translated to humans.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-09-17, 05:47 AM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 32,557
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogate View Post
Equine science, specifically nutrition and physiology. A lot of what she does is being translated to humans.
Well, I'm a horsehead and all, but......translated to humans, huh ?


So I guess that's why there should be public funding of such research ? - all the potential benefit to humans ?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-09-17, 05:50 AM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 32,557
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogate View Post
I mean I am going to look outnfor my and my family's best interest. It actually has been bugging me ethically as to how I should feel about this.
I meant that pretty much everyone wants to come to the "table" of Federal government and walk away with more than they showed up with......that's how you run a deficit. At least you admit it.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-09-17, 08:19 AM
Happygoluckky Happygoluckky is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 11-29-14
Posts: 2,699
Happygoluckky is on a distinguished road
It is only 1.5 Trillion....are kids can pay for it....

The cost of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1 (2017 TNT 213-16)) moved the bill north of the $ 1.5 trillion threshold set under the budget resolution chiefly because of an amendment (2017 TNT 214-12) adopted November 6 by Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-09-17, 08:59 AM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 18,040
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happygoluckky View Post
It is only 1.5 Trillion....are kids can pay for it....

The cost of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1 (2017 TNT 213-16)) moved the bill north of the $ 1.5 trillion threshold set under the budget resolution chiefly because of an amendment (2017 TNT 214-12) adopted November 6 by Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee.
All it takes is cutting spending and the budget is balanced. The problem IS NOT the amount of money coming in, I know people that balance their family budget at $30K, I know people that balance the family budget at $200K, and I know people that spend more than they make at $1M......

Whatever you make today, if you suddenly had another kid, you'd divide your income to account for 1 more mouth to feed. If there were no raises next year, you would shop cheaper. If you found yourself making $10K less, you'd cut expenses....... the government has the same capacity, it just doesn't have the same fortitude.

That's the problem, the government doesn't actually manage a budget or make the hard decisions. The federal government could balance the budget this year if it cut spending by 10% and we aren't talking about cutting SS and Medicare. If they capped spending to what we spend today, in 4 years the budget would be balanced. You want to pay off a significant part of the national debt, give corporations a special 10% tax for repatriating profits currently being retained overseas - $1T-$2.5T in debt could be paid off.

Our tax laws aren't written to encourage commerce or to help industry remain competitive. They aren't written to simply generate revenue for the operation of the government. They are written to equalize outcomes and punish the truly successful to artificially redistribute the success of others.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-09-17, 10:27 AM
Arrogate Arrogate is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-27-16
Location: Not in Price Hill
Posts: 4,902
Arrogate is on a distinguished road
In that 10% of cuts what would you like to see cut. I'm sure you may want to see more than 10% cut bhut realistically in your opinion what would be the best way to do it
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-09-17, 11:08 AM
Happygoluckky Happygoluckky is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 11-29-14
Posts: 2,699
Happygoluckky is on a distinguished road
401K's back in the conversation. This whole bill is good for Boomers...really bad for educated millenials trying to enter a very competitive job market, particularly in large urban centers.

The Boomers sucked benefits and will fight like hell for entitlements. Sorry 20 somethings.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 11-09-17, 11:19 AM
14Red 14Red is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 03-12-12
Posts: 3,991
14Red is an unknown quantity at this point
Sadly, we have developed, over time, the inability to save. This is a byproduct of our society A. having things really well over all and B. there always being a safety net in the form of government handouts and the whole "bankruptcy" system.

There is no stigma to not paying bills. There is no process of people "living in their means". The 20 somethings now just set up a "go fund me" account and it's basically panhandling on the internet. There are certainly cases where these issues are valid. A family has a tragic accident/ fire destroys their home/ rare disease, etc. But we now have people just go ask for money for any and everything, everyday living expenses. Personal pride in not asking for help is gone in a lot of cases.

Folks, the government needs every tax dollar they get to keep things in this country running. Most if not all of the folks who are sustained on the government's dime don't pay taxes. As enticing as a flat tax would be, it would be a loss for the government. So we continue to tax the rich at unfair levels because there isn't any other way. We need to lower the amount of handouts we do as a government. We enable people if we don't make them work for their benefits. It will catch up with us someday.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 11-09-17, 11:28 AM
Happygoluckky Happygoluckky is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 11-29-14
Posts: 2,699
Happygoluckky is on a distinguished road
Here are some quotes from GOP members pushing this bill through:

*New Jersey Republican Chris Collins recently offered a clue: “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.'”

* Sen. Lindsey Graham says unpopularity of tax reform irrelevant because “the financial contributions will stop” if tax reform fails

It is a gift to the donor class...
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 11-09-17, 11:30 AM
TylerDurden TylerDurden is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-12-01
Posts: 15,412
TylerDurden is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Red View Post
There is no stigma to not paying bills. There is no process of people "living in their means". The 20 somethings now just set up a "go fund me" account and it's basically panhandling on the internet. There are certainly cases where these issues are valid. A family has a tragic accident/ fire destroys their home/ rare disease, etc. But we now have people just go ask for money for any and everything, everyday living expenses. Personal pride in not asking for help is gone in a lot of cases.
In a thread where the growing national debt is being discussed you're calling out "20 somethings" for not being able to live within their means? No doubt the irony of this is lost on you.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 11-09-17, 01:01 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 18,040
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogate View Post
In that 10% of cuts what would you like to see cut. I'm sure you may want to see more than 10% cut bhut realistically in your opinion what would be the best way to do it
Same as it would be for a family. "Department heads, you have 10% less to spend than last year, make it work". They can cut headcount, they can not give raises, they can spend less on programs, purchases, etc. It's going to depend on what the department does and how they currently spend their money.

But there ARE some bigger things that I would also do - I would shutter the Department of Education (Saving $70B) and let the states and cities handle school funding issues. I would downsize the Departments of Energy and Homeland Security (returning the control of security for non-international airports to the airports).

I would end federally provided welfare, you couldn't do it overnight. But over a 2 year period, end the gravy train and give the states and cities the time to replace federal dollars with local focus and funds. With local funding and control you get better outcomes, for less money, and much less abuse. That would save the federal government $740B (almost 20%).

I would look at revamping the military, do we need to be able to fight 2 general wars, or a focused "war on terror" and a single general war, or just a single general war? Decide on what the mission is and then fund/size them to handle it and cut/expand spending as needed to meet the mission.

I would create a special repatriation tax to encourage companies to bring their overseas hoards back into the country. They can leave them overseas and use them for operations there because the US tax on that money is 30%. A 15% tax on those funds would generate $1.5-$3T in taxes - use that to pay down the debt and you cut our interest payments by nearly $30B annually.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 11-09-17, 01:02 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 18,040
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
In a thread where the growing national debt is being discussed you're calling out "20 somethings" for not being able to live within their means? No doubt the irony of this is lost on you.
We will never regain control if we don't realize the problem is caused by a government that cannot limit its spending. Like I said the problem isn't revenue for the government, it's spending. There is no path forward where the government spends itself to prosperity.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 11-09-17, 03:45 PM
Happygoluckky Happygoluckky is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 11-29-14
Posts: 2,699
Happygoluckky is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
We will never regain control if we don't realize the problem is caused by a government that cannot limit its spending. Like I said the problem isn't revenue for the government, it's spending. There is no path forward where the government spends itself to prosperity.
There are no spending cuts in fact Trump is increasing military spending and promised no to touch entitlements. Everything else is a rounding error. Make no mistake this is a tax cut for the donor class. It will do little for the coal miner in WVA.

Last edited by Happygoluckky; 11-09-17 at 05:00 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 11-09-17, 04:42 PM
domi domi is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 09-06-16
Posts: 1,137
domi is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
Same as it would be for a family. "Department heads, you have 10% less to spend than last year, make it work". They can cut headcount, they can not give raises, they can spend less on programs, purchases, etc. It's going to depend on what the department does and how they currently spend their money.

But there ARE some bigger things that I would also do - I would shutter the Department of Education (Saving $70B) and let the states and cities handle school funding issues. I would downsize the Departments of Energy and Homeland Security (returning the control of security for non-international airports to the airports).

I would end federally provided welfare, you couldn't do it overnight. But over a 2 year period, end the gravy train and give the states and cities the time to replace federal dollars with local focus and funds. With local funding and control you get better outcomes, for less money, and much less abuse. That would save the federal government $740B (almost 20%).

I would look at revamping the military, do we need to be able to fight 2 general wars, or a focused "war on terror" and a single general war, or just a single general war? Decide on what the mission is and then fund/size them to handle it and cut/expand spending as needed to meet the mission.

I would create a special repatriation tax to encourage companies to bring their overseas hoards back into the country. They can leave them overseas and use them for operations there because the US tax on that money is 30%. A 15% tax on those funds would generate $1.5-$3T in taxes - use that to pay down the debt and you cut our interest payments by nearly $30B annually.
IMHO it would take a lot longer than two years to transfer welfare to the states. The biggest problem I see is that almost %100 of welfare goes directly back into the economy as consumer spending so just yanking that federal spending probably means a recession while states take their time figuring out what to do. Another problem is Republicans in poor rural areas rely on welfare just as much as Democrats in inner cities do. They're not going to take away anything from their voters.

I think at best we can hope the government holds spending to previous years for the next few years.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 11-09-17, 05:32 PM
zeeman zeeman is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-22-11
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 6,613
zeeman is on a distinguished road
DC sucks
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 11-09-17, 10:02 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 18,040
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by domi View Post
....The biggest problem I see is that almost %100 of welfare goes directly back into the economy as consumer spending so just yanking that federal spending probably means a recession while states take their time figuring out what to do. ........
100% of taxes left in the hands of the people that earned them goes into the economy as well. Redistributing them just changes where the spending is, not the amounts.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 11-10-17, 07:16 AM
Happygoluckky Happygoluckky is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 11-29-14
Posts: 2,699
Happygoluckky is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
100% of taxes left in the hands of the people that earned them goes into the economy as well. Redistributing them just changes where the spending is, not the amounts.
It looks like some of it goes to the Caymans, Cyprus, Switzerland and a few other tax havens. Welfare is a drop in the bucket and goes right back into the local community almost immediate. Giving a tax cut to a billionaire does not.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Landslide buries California's scenic highway in Big Sur Yappi General Board 23 05-25-17 06:59 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Registration Booster - Powered By Dirt RIF CustUmz