H.R. 1, “Tax cuts and jobs act”

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

The AMT as currently set up really only impacts upper middle/lower upper people, and mostly in high cost Blue States.

My Brother and Sister-in-law, both lawyers, but hardly rich, always have to deal with it, and they were never the intended target.

MartyBegan, due to the alternative minimum tax, Donald Trump's federal 2005 taxes were increased in excess of 588%. That's why he's so opposed to the AMT?

Respectfully, Supposn

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.
That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

The AMT as currently set up really only impacts upper middle/lower upper people, and mostly in high cost Blue States.

My Brother and Sister-in-law, both lawyers, but hardly rich, always have to deal with it, and they were never the intended target.

MartyBegan, due to the alternative minimum tax, Donald Trump's federal 2005 taxes were increased in excess of 588%. That's why he's so opposed to the AMT?

Respectfully, Supposn

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.
That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

He had itemized deductions of $17 million.
Did you miss that?

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%?

Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.

To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Does the low wage worker want to collect Social Security?
What should they pay in FICA tax to support their retirement?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

He had itemized deductions of $17 million.
Did you miss that?

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%?

Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.

To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Does the low wage worker want to collect Social Security?
What should they pay in FICA tax to support their retirement?

ToddsterPatriot, the issue, and the point of my post is not employees' Social Security retirement coverages.
I'm opposing the contemptible proposal to eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

The AMT appears to have accomplished its purpose within the alleged 2005 Donald Trump income tax return published by the NY Times. The AMT prevents wealthier income tax filers from employing existing IRS regulations and provisions to the extent that they can evade paying what's been deemed as a “minimum” effective income tax rate relative to their total incomes, or their adjusted gross incomes, or other factors.

I regret that the AMT regulations were not drafted in a simpler manner. Part of the difficulty is that there's no simple manner to determine the net annual income of comparatively less than simple entities. The tax regulation should not have been drafted in a manner that's too often no less complex than the the finances of the taxpayers.
But AMT's complexity is a separate issue.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[martybegan]

eliminating the alternative minimum tax would be contemptible.

Kill the AMT. ... It should be conceivable that some millionaires will be obliged to pay an effective income tax rate of less than 11%, (i.e. 10.7%)?

So what?
If there is a particular deduction you find egregious,
let's discuss it, but if the deductions are fine, so is the effective rate.

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

The AMT as currently set up really only impacts upper middle/lower upper people, and mostly in high cost Blue States.

My Brother and Sister-in-law, both lawyers, but hardly rich, always have to deal with it, and they were never the intended target.

MartyBegan, due to the alternative minimum tax, Donald Trump's federal 2005 taxes were increased in excess of 588%. That's why he's so opposed to the AMT?

Respectfully, Supposn

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

I didn't care about other president's taxes, and I don't care about this one's taxes. As long as they aren't doing anything illegal let them work the system, like I work the system when I do my taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The AMT as currently set up really only impacts upper middle/lower upper people, and mostly in high cost Blue States.

My Brother and Sister-in-law, both lawyers, but hardly rich, always have to deal with it, and they were never the intended target.

MartyBegan, due to the alternative minimum tax, Donald Trump's federal 2005 taxes were increased in excess of 588%. That's why he's so opposed to the AMT?

Respectfully, Supposn

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.
That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.
That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

He had itemized deductions of $17 million.
Did you miss that?

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%?

Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.

To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Does the low wage worker want to collect Social Security?
What should they pay in FICA tax to support their retirement?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

He had itemized deductions of $17 million.
Did you miss that?

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%?

Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.

To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Does the low wage worker want to collect Social Security?
What should they pay in FICA tax to support their retirement?

ToddsterPatriot, the issue, and the point of my post is not employees' Social Security retirement coverages.
I'm opposing the contemptible proposal to eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

The AMT appears to have accomplished its purpose within the alleged 2005 Donald Trump income tax return published by the NY Times. The AMT prevents wealthier income tax filers from employing existing IRS regulations and provisions to the extent that they can evade paying what's been deemed as a “minimum” effective income tax rate relative to their total incomes, or their adjusted gross incomes, or other factors.

I regret that the AMT regulations were not drafted in a simpler manner. Part of the difficulty is that there's no simple manner to determine the net annual income of comparatively less than simple entities. The tax regulation should not have been drafted in a manner that's too often no less complex than the the finances of the taxpayers.
But AMT's complexity is a separate issue.

Respectfully, Supposn

the point of my post is not employees' Social Security retirement coverages.

Then talking about the unfairness of it was stupid.
Talk apples to apples. Trump paid income taxes, the low income person in your example paid none.

The AMT prevents wealthier income tax filers from employing existing IRS regulations and provisions to the extent that they can evade paying what's been deemed as a “minimum” effective income tax rate

After taking out his itemized deductions, his taxable income was about $33 million.
$5.3 million in tax was about 16%. Basically the capital gains rate.
Why do you feel that is the same as him "evading paying" his fair share?

If you have an issue with any of the deductions he took, let's discuss.
Complaining about his final tax bill without that level of detail is silly.

 

[Supposn]

MartyBegan, due to the alternative minimum tax, Donald Trump's federal 2005 taxes were increased in excess of 588%. That's why he's so opposed to the AMT?

Respectfully, Supposn

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.
That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.
That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

He had itemized deductions of $17 million.
Did you miss that?

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%?

Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.

To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Does the low wage worker want to collect Social Security?
What should they pay in FICA tax to support their retirement?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

He had itemized deductions of $17 million.
Did you miss that?

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%?

Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.

To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Does the low wage worker want to collect Social Security?
What should they pay in FICA tax to support their retirement?

ToddsterPatriot, the issue, and the point of my post is not employees' Social Security retirement coverages.
I'm opposing the contemptible proposal to eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

The AMT appears to have accomplished its purpose within the alleged 2005 Donald Trump income tax return published by the NY Times. The AMT prevents wealthier income tax filers from employing existing IRS regulations and provisions to the extent that they can evade paying what's been deemed as a “minimum” effective income tax rate relative to their total incomes, or their adjusted gross incomes, or other factors.

I regret that the AMT regulations were not drafted in a simpler manner. Part of the difficulty is that there's no simple manner to determine the net annual income of comparatively less than simple entities. The tax regulation should not have been drafted in a manner that's too often no less complex than the the finances of the taxpayers.
But AMT's complexity is a separate issue.

Respectfully, Supposn

the point of my post is not employees' Social Security retirement coverages.

Then talking about the unfairness of it was stupid.
Talk apples to apples. Trump paid income taxes, the low income person in your example paid none.

The AMT prevents wealthier income tax filers from employing existing IRS regulations and provisions to the extent that they can evade paying what's been deemed as a “minimum” effective income tax rate

After taking out his itemized deductions, his taxable income was about $33 million.
$5.3 million in tax was about 16%. Basically the capital gains rate.
Why do you feel that is the same as him "evading paying" his fair share?

If you have an issue with any of the deductions he took, let's discuss.
Complaining about his final tax bill without that level of detail is silly.

ToddsterPatriot, the incomes of the low income people in my example weren't sufficient to be liable for any federal income taxes but regardless of that, they paid the federal government 7.65% of every single dollar of wages they earned.
My post compares that to Donald Trump's tax preparer's calculation that excluding the additional alternative minimum tax, his income tax bill would be less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.

I never implied that he was evading taxes; I made it clear that if the alternative minimum tax is eliminated, people such as Donald Trump could be liable for less than 11% income tax on an adjusted gross exceeding 49.5 million dollars. In comparison to the rates of taxes levied on others, that would be a contemptible situation.

We cannot discuss tax issues regarding any details of President Trump's taxes, because (unlike his predecessors'), he has chosen not to reveal his tax returns. But he is our president and we have the right to speculate upon his taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.
That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

He had itemized deductions of $17 million.
Did you miss that?

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%?

Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.

To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Does the low wage worker want to collect Social Security?
What should they pay in FICA tax to support their retirement?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

He had itemized deductions of $17 million.
Did you miss that?

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%?

Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.

To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Does the low wage worker want to collect Social Security?
What should they pay in FICA tax to support their retirement?

ToddsterPatriot, the issue, and the point of my post is not employees' Social Security retirement coverages.
I'm opposing the contemptible proposal to eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

The AMT appears to have accomplished its purpose within the alleged 2005 Donald Trump income tax return published by the NY Times. The AMT prevents wealthier income tax filers from employing existing IRS regulations and provisions to the extent that they can evade paying what's been deemed as a “minimum” effective income tax rate relative to their total incomes, or their adjusted gross incomes, or other factors.

I regret that the AMT regulations were not drafted in a simpler manner. Part of the difficulty is that there's no simple manner to determine the net annual income of comparatively less than simple entities. The tax regulation should not have been drafted in a manner that's too often no less complex than the the finances of the taxpayers.
But AMT's complexity is a separate issue.

Respectfully, Supposn

the point of my post is not employees' Social Security retirement coverages.

Then talking about the unfairness of it was stupid.
Talk apples to apples. Trump paid income taxes, the low income person in your example paid none.

The AMT prevents wealthier income tax filers from employing existing IRS regulations and provisions to the extent that they can evade paying what's been deemed as a “minimum” effective income tax rate

After taking out his itemized deductions, his taxable income was about $33 million.
$5.3 million in tax was about 16%. Basically the capital gains rate.
Why do you feel that is the same as him "evading paying" his fair share?

If you have an issue with any of the deductions he took, let's discuss.
Complaining about his final tax bill without that level of detail is silly.

ToddsterPatriot, the incomes of the low income people in my example weren't sufficient to be liable for any federal income taxes but regardless of that, they paid the federal government 7.65% of every single dollar of wages they earned.
My post compares that to Donald Trump's tax preparer's calculation that excluding the additional alternative minimum tax, his income tax bill would be less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.

I never implied that he was evading taxes; I made it clear that if the alternative minimum tax is eliminated, people such as Donald Trump could be liable for less than 11% income tax on an adjusted gross exceeding 49.5 million dollars. In comparison to the rates of taxes levied on others, that would be a contemptible situation.

We cannot discuss tax issues regarding any details of President Trump's taxes, because (unlike his predecessors'), he has chosen not to reveal his tax returns. But he is our president and we have the right to speculate upon his taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, the incomes of the low income people in my example weren't sufficient to be liable for any federal income taxes but regardless of that, they paid the federal government 7.65% of every single dollar of wages they earned.

Well, if they want to collect Social Security, that's the current requirement.
If you think low income people should collect Social Security without paying into the system, say so.

My post compares that to Donald Trump's tax preparer's calculation that excluding the additional alternative minimum tax, his income tax bill would be less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.

Yes, I noticed your error.
You ignored his $17 million in itemized deductions.
So your 11% claim is incorrect.

I never implied that he was evading taxes; I made it clear that if the alternative minimum tax is eliminated, people such as Donald Trump could be liable for less than 11% income tax on an adjusted gross exceeding 49.5 million dollars. In comparison to the rates of taxes levied on others, that would be a contemptible situation.

Yes, I noticed your emotional response. But what's the logical reason? Do you have one?

If he took $1 billion and purchased only muni bonds and earned 3%, $30 million per year,
would you whine that he must be subject to the AMT because $30 million untaxed is contemptible?

Or would you push to remove the muni exemption in general?

we have the right to speculate upon his taxes.

And when your speculations involve math errors, you should correct them.

 

[Supposn]

1. 
   ToddsterPatriot, regarding my post, #44: The incomes of the low income people in my example weren't sufficient to be liable for any federal income taxes but regardless of that, they paid the federal government 7.65% of every single dollar of wages they earned.
   I stated Donald Trump's tax preparer's calculation of taxes, (which excludes the additional alternative minimum tax), was less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.

1. 
   Within your responding post, #45, you wrote, “Well, if they want to collect Social Security, that's the current requirement.
   If you think low income people should collect Social Security without paying into the system, say so”.
   
   ToddsterPatriot, you've again dragged in Social Security into the discussion; it's a “red herring”. My comment pertains to comparative effective tax rates with regard to this threads topic, the proposed “tax cuts and jobs act”. If you wish to discuss Social Security, I suppose we may do so within a thread dedicated to that topic.
   
   Within post #44, I never implied that Donald Trump attempted to evade paying his taxes but if the alternative minimum tax had not then been the deciding factor, he would have been liable to an effective income tax rate of less than 11%. I further commented that in comparison to the rates of taxes levied on others, that would be a contemptible situation. Your response, post #45 in part was, “Yes, I noticed your error. You ignored his $17 million in itemized deductions. So your 11% claim is incorrect”. You further commented and noticing my emotional response and inquired what was my logical reasoning, and ... “when your speculations involve math errors, you should correct them”.

I'll answer the remainder of your responding post, #45, later.
//////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, regarding the alleged two pages of Donald Trump's 2005 tax return published by the NY Times, I don't believe the facts I stated are contrary to those pages.

I did not ignore Line #40, Itemized deductions (from Schedule A) ..$17, 034, 485., (but until you brought it again to my attention, I did not until now notice line # 41's overstated by $300.).

No, my calculation is correct: Line #38, Adjusted gross income” is $49, 592, 825. Line #44, Tax is $5, 310, 616. The calculated tax is 10.708% of the adjusted gross income, which is less than 11%.

I understand your disagreeing with evaluation of proposals to eliminate the alternative minimum tax as being “contemptible”. But you have not found any mathematical errors within my posts to this discussion thread?

Even wage earners with incomes too insufficient to be liable for federal income taxes, pay 7.65% of every one of their wages' dollars for a federal tax. I don't believe that I'm overstating the case that the majority of USA's federal taxpayers would agree that an individual's annual gross income in excess of $150 million, and losses $103, 201, 242. for a remaining adjusted gross income in excess of $49.5 million, requires a lot of explaining.
My last paragraph of post #44 was “We cannot discuss tax issues regarding any details of President Trump's taxes, because (unlike his predecessors'), he has chosen not to reveal his tax returns. But he is our president and we have the right to speculate upon his taxes”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. 
   ToddsterPatriot, regarding my post, #44: The incomes of the low income people in my example weren't sufficient to be liable for any federal income taxes but regardless of that, they paid the federal government 7.65% of every single dollar of wages they earned.
   I stated Donald Trump's tax preparer's calculation of taxes, (which excludes the additional alternative minimum tax), was less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.

1. 
   Within your responding post, #45, you wrote, “Well, if they want to collect Social Security, that's the current requirement.
   If you think low income people should collect Social Security without paying into the system, say so”.
   
   ToddsterPatriot, you've again dragged in Social Security into the discussion; it's a “red herring”. My comment pertains to comparative effective tax rates with regard to this threads topic, the proposed “tax cuts and jobs act”. If you wish to discuss Social Security, I suppose we may do so within a thread dedicated to that topic.
   
   Within post #44, I never implied that Donald Trump attempted to evade paying his taxes but if the alternative minimum tax had not then been the deciding factor, he would have been liable to an effective income tax rate of less than 11%. I further commented that in comparison to the rates of taxes levied on others, that would be a contemptible situation. Your response, post #45 in part was, “Yes, I noticed your error. You ignored his $17 million in itemized deductions. So your 11% claim is incorrect”. You further commented and noticing my emotional response and inquired what was my logical reasoning, and ... “when your speculations involve math errors, you should correct them”.

I'll answer the remainder of your responding post, #45, later.
//////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, regarding the alleged two pages of Donald Trump's 2005 tax return published by the NY Times, I don't believe the facts I stated are contrary to those pages.

I did not ignore Line #40, Itemized deductions (from Schedule A) ..$17, 034, 485., (but until you brought it again to my attention, I did not until now notice line # 41's overstated by $300.).

No, my calculation is correct: Line #38, Adjusted gross income” is $49, 592, 825. Line #44, Tax is $5, 310, 616. The calculated tax is 10.708% of the adjusted gross income, which is less than 11%.

I understand your disagreeing with evaluation of proposals to eliminate the alternative minimum tax as being “contemptible”. But you have not found any mathematical errors within my posts to this discussion thread?

Even wage earners with incomes too insufficient to be liable for federal income taxes, pay 7.65% of every one of their wages' dollars for a federal tax. I don't believe that I'm overstating the case that the majority of USA's federal taxpayers would agree that an individual's annual gross income in excess of $150 million, and losses $103, 201, 242. for a remaining adjusted gross income in excess of $49.5 million, requires a lot of explaining.
My last paragraph of post #44 was “We cannot discuss tax issues regarding any details of President Trump's taxes, because (unlike his predecessors'), he has chosen not to reveal his tax returns. But he is our president and we have the right to speculate upon his taxes”.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, regarding my post, #44: The incomes of the low income people in my example weren't sufficient to be liable for any federal income taxes but regardless of that, they paid the federal government 7.65% of every single dollar of wages they earned.

Yes, they pay for their future Social Security benefits. Which has nothing to do with Income Taxes.
So why compare it to Trump's, or anyone's, income tax?

I stated Donald Trump's tax preparer's calculation of taxes, (which excludes the additional alternative minimum tax), was less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.

So what? People don't pay tax on AGI.

ToddsterPatriot, you've again dragged in Social Security into the discussion; it's a “red herring”.

Right. I dragged it into the discussion in post #45 in response to you dragging it into the discussion in post #
39.

I agree, it's a red herring.

Within post #44, I never implied that Donald Trump attempted to evade paying his taxes but if the alternative minimum tax had not then been the deciding factor, he would have been liable to an effective income tax rate of less than 11%

Yes, you're whining about his paying 16.8%.
Tax: $ 5,310,616. Taxable income $31,558,340

 

[Supposn]

... If he took $1 billion and purchased only muni bonds and earned 3%, $30 million per year,
would you whine that he must be subject to the AMT because $30 million untaxed is contemptible?

Or would you push to remove the muni exemption in general? ...

Federal law does not exempt income derived from federal bond interest to be federally taxed; but it does prohibit state or local governments from taxing such interest.
The IRS does not tax interest on state or and local government bonds. This is an indirect subsidy of states and/or local governments issuing those bonds.

Due to these policies, federal budgets' costs of debt servicing are greatly increased; any advantages of federal debts that might otherwise exist over states or local debts within bond markets are somewhat reduced.
If USA's financial communities should ever oppose these policies, I cannot conceive the states being amiable to radically change them. I believe they serve net public good.

On the other hand, I am a proponent for eliminating the unjustifiable great income tax discounts granted to long-term capital gains incomes, and again permit the IRS regulations' income averaging provisions to be applicable to almost any annual income boons.
Furthermore I'm not opposed to considerations for increasing the number of years' incomes that can be “averaged out”.

I note that among the proposed “Tax cut and job act's” provisions being considered is capping the amounts of home mortgage expenses that would be deductible when itemizing expenses.
Within the topic “IRS's income averaging provisions are a superior tax policy” initial post, the same concept was advocated.

Refer to: IRS’s income averaging provisions are a superior tax policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... If he took $1 billion and purchased only muni bonds and earned 3%, $30 million per year,
would you whine that he must be subject to the AMT because $30 million untaxed is contemptible?

Or would you push to remove the muni exemption in general? ...

Federal law does not exempt income derived from federal bond interest to be federally taxed; but it does prohibit state or local governments from taxing such interest.
The IRS does not tax interest on state or and local government bonds. This is an indirect subsidy of states and/or local governments issuing those bonds.

Due to these policies, federal budgets' costs of debt servicing are greatly increased; any advantages of federal debts that might otherwise exist over states or local debts within bond markets are somewhat reduced.
If USA's financial communities should ever oppose these policies, I cannot conceive the states being amiable to radically change them. I believe they serve net public good.

On the other hand, I am a proponent for eliminating the unjustifiable great income tax discounts granted to long-term capital gains incomes, and again permit the IRS regulations' income averaging provisions to be applicable to almost any annual income boons.
Furthermore I'm not opposed to considerations for increasing the number of years' incomes that can be “averaged out”.

I note that among the proposed “Tax cut and job act's” provisions being considered is capping the amounts of home mortgage expenses that would be deductible when itemizing expenses.
Within the topic “IRS's income averaging provisions are a superior tax policy” initial post, the same concept was advocated.

Refer to: IRS’s income averaging provisions are a superior tax policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

The IRS does not tax interest on state or and local government bonds. This is an indirect subsidy of states and/or local governments issuing those bonds.

I know. This allows mean rich people to pay less Federal tax.

I believe they serve net public good.

But....rich people.

On the other hand, I am a proponent for eliminating the unjustifiable great income tax discounts granted to long-term capital gains incomes,

I already said a top rate of 20% and a capital gains rate of 20% works for me.

 

[Supposn]

1. Tax deductibillity for “SALT”:

1. I advocate finite capping deductions for taxpayers' home mortgage interest and denying multi simultaneous primary residences to individuals or joint taxpayers. I advocated their finite deductible amounts be annually cost-of-living adjusted, (i.e. COLA).

1. The competitions among federal, state and local governments for possible tax revenues are unavoidable and regrettable. The congress's considerations for limiting “state and local taxes”, (i.e. SALT) items deductions from individual taxpayers' federal income taxes has merit. But there's no logical reason for the federal government to presume influencing the “mix” of SALT tax revenues or where people choose to reside within our nation.

1. I advocate individual taxpayers' aggregate “SALT” deductible items from their federal income taxes be subject to both “caps” upon their percentages of adjusted gross or of taxable incomes, AND a finite annual COLA'd.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Refer to Individual mandate repeal/ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Excerpted from first post within the thread:
Senate Republicans are seriously considering modification of their “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” draft to repeal the individual healthcare mandate.
Thus due to consequentially less younger and healthier people will refrain from purchasing insurance, the proportions of older and/or less healthy people will increase within a diminished sized pool of those with medical insurance. ...

... Three major Republican purposes for increasing medical insurance prices are to:
(1) Undermine the the ACA.
(2) More greatly enable reduction of income tax rates.
(3) Eliminate the alternative minimum taxes, (AMT).

Eliminating the individuals medical insurance mandate, thus increasing prices of such insurance, then also increase direct and indirect medical costs to states and local governments, and additionally medical emergency rooms that will provide their greatly more expensive care to those that must use them for primary care. These additional costs will to some extent indirectly reflect back upon our annual federal budgets.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Refer to Individual mandate repeal/ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Excerpted from first post within the thread:
Senate Republicans are seriously considering modification of their “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” draft to repeal the individual healthcare mandate.
Thus due to consequentially less younger and healthier people will refrain from purchasing insurance, the proportions of older and/or less healthy people will increase within a diminished sized pool of those with medical insurance. ...

... Three major Republican purposes for increasing medical insurance prices are to:
(1) Undermine the the ACA.
(2) More greatly enable reduction of income tax rates.
(3) Eliminate the alternative minimum taxes, (AMT).

Eliminating the individuals medical insurance mandate, thus increasing prices of such insurance, then also increase direct and indirect medical costs to states and local governments, and additionally medical emergency rooms that will provide their greatly more expensive care to those that must use them for primary care. These additional costs will to some extent indirectly reflect back upon our annual federal budgets.

Respectfully, Supposn

Thus due to consequentially less younger and healthier people will refrain from purchasing insurance

There's too much freedom goin' on around here!

 

[Penelope]

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

The AMT as currently set up really only impacts upper middle/lower upper people, and mostly in high cost Blue States.

My Brother and Sister-in-law, both lawyers, but hardly rich, always have to deal with it, and they were never the intended target.

MartyBegan, due to the alternative minimum tax, Donald Trump's federal 2005 taxes were increased in excess of 588%. That's why he's so opposed to the AMT?

Respectfully, Supposn

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

I didn't care about other president's taxes, and I don't care about this one's taxes. As long as they aren't doing anything illegal let them work the system, like I work the system when I do my taxes.

What do you think he was doing with all those businesses and in Delaware.

 

[Penelope]

Refer to Individual mandate repeal/ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Excerpted from first post within the thread:
Senate Republicans are seriously considering modification of their “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” draft to repeal the individual healthcare mandate.
Thus due to consequentially less younger and healthier people will refrain from purchasing insurance, the proportions of older and/or less healthy people will increase within a diminished sized pool of those with medical insurance. ...

... Three major Republican purposes for increasing medical insurance prices are to:
(1) Undermine the the ACA.
(2) More greatly enable reduction of income tax rates.
(3) Eliminate the alternative minimum taxes, (AMT).

Eliminating the individuals medical insurance mandate, thus increasing prices of such insurance, then also increase direct and indirect medical costs to states and local governments, and additionally medical emergency rooms that will provide their greatly more expensive care to those that must use them for primary care. These additional costs will to some extent indirectly reflect back upon our annual federal budgets.

Respectfully, Supposn

Thus due to consequentially less younger and healthier people will refrain from purchasing insurance

There's too much freedom goin' on around here!

No the people who won't buy ins are the free loaders.

 

[martybegan]

The AMT as currently set up really only impacts upper middle/lower upper people, and mostly in high cost Blue States.

My Brother and Sister-in-law, both lawyers, but hardly rich, always have to deal with it, and they were never the intended target.

MartyBegan, due to the alternative minimum tax, Donald Trump's federal 2005 taxes were increased in excess of 588%. That's why he's so opposed to the AMT?

Respectfully, Supposn

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

I didn't care about other president's taxes, and I don't care about this one's taxes. As long as they aren't doing anything illegal let them work the system, like I work the system when I do my taxes.

What do you think he was doing with all those businesses and in Delaware.

Playing the system under the rules established.

 

[jillian]

okie dokie, nutter butter.

typical brainless liberal incapable of substance!

I said what I needed to. I'm not going to argue with the insane

Peace out

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Refer to Individual mandate repeal/ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Excerpted from first post within the thread:
Senate Republicans are seriously considering modification of their “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” draft to repeal the individual healthcare mandate.
Thus due to consequentially less younger and healthier people will refrain from purchasing insurance, the proportions of older and/or less healthy people will increase within a diminished sized pool of those with medical insurance. ...

... Three major Republican purposes for increasing medical insurance prices are to:
(1) Undermine the the ACA.
(2) More greatly enable reduction of income tax rates.
(3) Eliminate the alternative minimum taxes, (AMT).

Eliminating the individuals medical insurance mandate, thus increasing prices of such insurance, then also increase direct and indirect medical costs to states and local governments, and additionally medical emergency rooms that will provide their greatly more expensive care to those that must use them for primary care. These additional costs will to some extent indirectly reflect back upon our annual federal budgets.

Respectfully, Supposn

Thus due to consequentially less younger and healthier people will refrain from purchasing insurance

There's too much freedom goin' on around here!

No the people who won't buy ins are the free loaders.

Suddenly liberals are concerned about free loaders........Priceless!!

 

[Penelope]

Refer to Individual mandate repeal/ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Excerpted from first post within the thread:
Senate Republicans are seriously considering modification of their “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” draft to repeal the individual healthcare mandate.
Thus due to consequentially less younger and healthier people will refrain from purchasing insurance, the proportions of older and/or less healthy people will increase within a diminished sized pool of those with medical insurance. ...

... Three major Republican purposes for increasing medical insurance prices are to:
(1) Undermine the the ACA.
(2) More greatly enable reduction of income tax rates.
(3) Eliminate the alternative minimum taxes, (AMT).

Eliminating the individuals medical insurance mandate, thus increasing prices of such insurance, then also increase direct and indirect medical costs to states and local governments, and additionally medical emergency rooms that will provide their greatly more expensive care to those that must use them for primary care. These additional costs will to some extent indirectly reflect back upon our annual federal budgets.

Respectfully, Supposn

Thus due to consequentially less younger and healthier people will refrain from purchasing insurance

There's too much freedom goin' on around here!

No the people who won't buy ins are the free loaders.

Suddenly liberals are concerned about free loaders........Priceless!!

Maj. of us are, the maj. of us work and pay taxes. Maj of us liberals , as you call us, are not anal retentive with our money.

Also lets differentiate between socially and fiscally responsible, and the GOP congress have proved they are neither.

 

[Penelope]

All of us middle class should keep our tax money and pool it and help the needy, since they are taking away healthcare, defunding HUD, have not funded Chip yet (heard they are keeping that as a bargaining chip) , I mean if the congress does not help the needy maybe we should. F...K Trump and the GOP. Lets see who wins here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

okie dokie, nutter butter.

typical brainless liberal incapable of substance!

I said what I needed to. I'm not going to argue with the insane

Peace out

of course if conservatism is insane you would not be so afraid to say why. What did your fear teach you?