U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-18-2016, 11:40 AM
 
2,630 posts, read 1,936,489 times
Reputation: 4597

Advertisements

He never said that.

 
Old 11-18-2016, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,539 posts, read 44,018,537 times
Reputation: 15140
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen View Post
Reagan increased deductions and loopholes, and lowered marginal tax rates, as well.

But it was Reagan who reduced the deductions and loopholes almost immediately. Why? Because the debt went up significantly almost immediately.

So instead of raising taxes by raising the marginal rates, he put in increases in other ways...the loopholes he'd increased were removed, deductions decreased, other tax charges were added, so that some people ended up paying more in taxes AFTER Reagan's reform than before, even though their nominal rate was less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
exactly! and I'm living proof of that, all I heard was that my taxes were going down and when I did my tax return I had to deplete most of my savings to pay the bill, the following year I had to increase my withholding and as a result (I was a single mom) I had to toss a coin to decide whether to buy my kids shoes or pay my utility bill on time
I, too, was one of those who ended up paying more than double in taxes than I had previously. I've never forgotten it. Single parent, as well. Every dollar mattered. With itemized deductions, I could usually get my taxable income down to the almost tax-free level. Reagan's changes eliminated the exclusion of the first $5,000 of taxable income from tax. I noticed that little change, immediately. After the recession of the early 80's, I had gone from an income of $30k/yr. to $18k/yr. So, $500/$1,000 in additional taxes was serious money. Reagan never did me any favors. His changes definitely were regressive.

GOP is all smoke and mirrors, hoping to bamboozle the uneducated - with great success, as a general rule.

Last edited by Ariadne22; 11-18-2016 at 03:53 PM..
 
Old 11-18-2016, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,260 posts, read 12,507,549 times
Reputation: 19415
Your memory deceives you. The Reagan/Bradley tax code overhaul was an excellent tax cut for low income taxpayers.

THE TAX REFORM OF 1986 - POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS - PRESIDENT SIGNS NEW TAX BILL - NYTimes.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
 
Old 11-18-2016, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,539 posts, read 44,018,537 times
Reputation: 15140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Your memory deceives you. The Reagan/Bradley tax code overhaul was an excellent tax cut for low income taxpayers.

THE TAX REFORM OF 1986 - POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS - PRESIDENT SIGNS NEW TAX BILL - NYTimes.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
Clearly, we fell between the cracks. I am very good w/tax planning, do it several times a year, have done my entire life. I clearly remember that year (and if dig around upstairs, I'll find my old tax returns from those years) that taxes were considerably higher because first dollar was now being taxed. My taxes doubled at least.
 
Old 11-18-2016, 08:32 PM
 
7,981 posts, read 3,466,719 times
Reputation: 11230
Paul Ryan and his love for Ayn Rand will make sure he kills social security and medicare. Picking the pockets of the middle class and poor. Typical Republicans....
 
Old 11-18-2016, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,602 posts, read 1,892,707 times
Reputation: 2348
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I sure didn't read it that way. Here is an explanation of the way the CBPP reads the Ryan 2015 plan:

"Chairman Ryan says that his premium-support proposal would not affect people aged 56 and older in 2014, but this claim is unlikely to be true. Under premium support, traditional Medicare would tend to attract a less healthy pool of enrollees, while private plans would attract healthier ones (as occurs today with Medicare and private Medicare Advantage plans). Although the proposal calls for “risk adjusting” payments to health plans — that is, adjusting them to reflect their enrollees’ health status — the risk adjustment process is highly imperfect and captures only part of the cost differences across plans that stem from differences in enrollees’ health.

Inadequate risk adjustment would mean that traditional Medicare would be only partially compensa*ted for its higher-cost enrollees, which would force it to raise premiums to make up the difference. The higher premiums would lead more of Medicare’s healthier enrollees to abandon it for private plans, very possibly setting off a spiral of rising premium costs and falling enrollment for traditional Medicare. Over time, traditional Medicare would become less financially viable and could unravel — not because it was less efficient than the private plans, but because it was competing on an unlevel playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurred lower costs as a consequence."


and later in the same document:

For example, a frail elderly widow with income of only $11,700 — just above the poverty level — could be required to pay $400 more each year if the Part B deductible rose from $146 to $550, as some proposals would do.[9] Many such individuals likely would forgo some needed care as a result.


The CBPP report you linked is from April 2014. The recent Ryan paper, was written within the last year. At any rate, there's passages in the CBPP, that jives with the current paper: "The Medicare age will be raised to 67". "Premium support will begin with new enrollees in 2024". Who's going to turn 67 in 2024? Answer: Those who are 59 today. What does the recent Ryan plan state? Those in their 60's will stay under current Medicare. 59 is under 60.

You're also overlooking the significance of a recent occurrence. The Republicans have an unforeseen opportunity to repeal Obamacare. Obamacare will be replaced with something else. And within that something else, what we know as Medicare, will be integrated under the new rules.

Younger people will become accustomed to the new universal plan and it's cost. The cost will be incorporated into future retirees budgets. One's car insurance premium doesn't go away when you retire, and neither will your healthcare insurance premium under this scenario. It's quite ingenious if you think about it.

It's getting more difficult in this thread to separate the ideological political rants, from practical analysis of future scenarios, that seniors may encounter with healthcare. Not sure where you fall on the spectrum.

Last edited by BLS2753; 11-18-2016 at 11:03 PM..
 
Old 11-18-2016, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,071 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Your memory deceives you. The Reagan/Bradley tax code overhaul was an excellent tax cut for low income taxpayers.
THE TAX REFORM OF 1986 - POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS - PRESIDENT SIGNS NEW TAX BILL - NYTimes.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
If you change the brackets and eliminate deductions that were primarily used by the middle class they end up paying more even though you reduce the tax rate. It happened to me, I knew how to do taxes and maximize returns. My taxes almost doubled just as Ariadne22's did. Why would we lie about it?
 
Old 11-18-2016, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,602 posts, read 1,892,707 times
Reputation: 2348
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753 View Post
The CBPP report you linked is from April 2014. The recent Ryan paper, was written within the last year. At any rate, there's passages in the CBPP, that jives with the current paper: "The Medicare age will be raised to 67". "Premium support will begin with new enrollees in 2024". Who's going to turn 67 in 2024? Answer: Those who are 59 today. What does the recent Ryan plan state? Those in their 60's will stay under current Medicare. 59 is under 60.

You're also overlooking the significance of a recent occurrence. The Republicans have an unforeseen opportunity to repeal Obamacare. Obamacare will be replaced with something else. And within that something else, what we know as Medicare, will be integrated under the new rules.

Younger people will become accustomed to the new universal plan and it's cost. The cost will be incorporated into future retirees budgets. One's car insurance premium doesn't go away when you retire, and neither will your healthcare insurance premium under this scenario. It's quite ingenious if you think about it.

It's getting more difficult in this thread to separate the ideological political rants, from practical analysis of future scenarios, that seniors may encounter with healthcare. Not sure where you fall on the spectrum.
Just did some more digging. The CBPP is known to be a progressive leaning organization. Of course they're going to embellish the negatives of any plan of Paul Ryan's.

For what it's worth, I'm a moderate Republican, and NOT a fan of Paul Ryan. I do however resent some of the unnecessary fear mongering going on in this thread.
 
Old 11-18-2016, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,071 posts, read 13,598,798 times
Reputation: 22130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753 View Post
Just did some more digging. The CBPP is known to be a progressive leaning organization. Of course they're going to embellish the negatives of any plan of Paul Ryan's. For what it's worth, I'm a moderate Republican, and NOT a fan of Paul Ryan. I do however resent some of the unnecessary fear mongering going on in this thread.
You can dismiss it as being "progressive leaning" but that doesn't really add to the discussion. It would be more helpful if you pointed out specific areas where you think they are incorrect. Did you look at the end note sources?
 
Old 11-18-2016, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Chesapeake Bay
6,048 posts, read 3,872,797 times
Reputation: 3502
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753 View Post
Just did some more digging. The CBPP is known to be a progressive leaning organization. Of course they're going to embellish the negatives of any plan of Paul Ryan's.

For what it's worth, I'm a moderate Republican, and NOT a fan of Paul Ryan. I do however resent some of the unnecessary fear mongering going on in this thread.
Are there any positives?

The only option for most retirees is to opt out and go to ER should Ryan's plan pass. And with that total chaos becomes the next step. Nationwide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top