14

Here's how your take-home pay could change if Trump's new tax plan is passed

Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 4 months ago to Economics
404 comments | Share | Flag

Hmm....I keep wanting to believe that a plain 10% "flat Tax" would be the best way to do this, since the looters ARE going to loot, no matter what. All of this "talk" keeps adding up to just making the smoke a different color and making the mirrors more polished. It still is a game where you have to try to "out loot the looters" using all their weird gambits and tricks. There is still way too much money to be taken by keeping the current system, and all the "donations" it causes to be made, to political campaigns.
SOURCE URL: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/apos-home-pay-could-change-171600109.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    After 65 the only kind of private insurance you can get is a supplement to Medicare, some of which are very good, but with the price rising accordingly. There are many companies with many different kinds of policies, but they tend to vary in different parts of the country. Research what is available in your area and talk to the insurance companies about Mayo in particular.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
      I have researched unfortunately, and I have been covered by a medigap policy "F" since I was 65. Doesnt help at all with mayo. I have discussed it directly with mayo and their problem is that they just cant afford to treat medicare/medigap patients any more with the care level they are known for and at the reimbursements offered by those plans. Their website actually says they refuse anyone with "government" insurance, which is the wave of the future I am sure. Too bad.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
        But they are taking patients with sufficient insurance, which is apparently more than medigap. Ask Mayo exactly what insurance they do accept for people over 65, what companies sell it and what it is called so you know what to ask for. If they say there aren't any then they would be refusing everyone over 65, which doesn't sound right for a medical establishment with their world wide reputation, at least not yet.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
          What they are doing is not taking any NEW patients into specialties they havent been to in the last three years. They know they cant just cut out all over 65 people unless they pay cash cause that would decimate their business- but they can trim them back.

          They must have better deals with private insurers available to people under 65 and are currently only stuck with government insurance people who are active patients, and the super rich who just write checks for cash and dont use medicare at all. I had some extensive discussions over the phone with them, and their suggestion was to enroll in their concierge family medicine program at $6000 per year ( which I am going to do as soon as they have an opening-4 month waiting list !!) so as to get a referral from their pcp and get into the specialty doctors.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
            Private insurers are selling policies that supplement Medicare; for those over 65 they are the only policies they can sell you. Those policies generally cost less than comparable policies not involved with Medicare because Medicare pays a big part of it. That is what you are looking for now. Maybe the 'concierge family' plan they recommended is some version of that, but there should be others. Some of them make payments only after Medicare has paid whatever it will do, but others operate like full private plans so you don't see the Medicare bureaucracy at all, with the Medicare payments all internal to the private plan.

            Many of them are HMOs where there is a pcp who makes referrals like you described, but Blue Cross sells plans that are not HMOs. The plans differ in different parts of the country so you will have to do some digging. I don't know what you will find or if the 'concierge family' plan will be the only one. At least you have found something you can use. There are delays getting into them because they generally only take new patients annually, but I don't know if that is related to the 4 month wait you encountered.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
              I have found its very complicated. You are correct that the only private insurance that one can get IF you have medicare is the supplemental GAP policy which pays the 20% medicare doesnt pay as well as the 15% extra that a provider can charge over specified medicare rates.

              If you are willing to cancel yourself out of medicare, you can try one of the private medicare advantage plans, but they seem to require that you stay within some preferred group. Not sure if you get any benefits at all if you go outside the network- I will have to check that out.

              The other option is to deny medicare completely and pay all cash for everything.

              I currently have a local PCP who offers a concierge plan for $1500 a year for essentially instant access for things PCP's can help with (he isnt a specialist).

              The plan I think will work for me to allow me access to mayo's specialists and hospital care will cost $6000 a year and give me access to mayo's PCP and then back door access to their specialists for which they will accept medicare.

              Its crazy but I may be able to get this done and have it work for a few years anyway until the government screws up medical care more.

              Obama really made medical care here worse then it was. The more the government gets into it, the worse its going to get.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
                It is very complicated. Insurance is not easy, but Medicare and its rules and bureaucratic edicts have made it much worse. I don't think you can opt out of medicare even if you don't use the money, and in general can't get insurance over 65 without Medicare involvement. Once you get through the 4 month waiting period you said they require and are at least into the plan you described you can take a breath and investigate what other policies may be available (at least until choice disappears later completely). The private plans still vary quite a bit and some may be better for you than others, depending on your personal circumstances. For example an HMO type plan requiring referrals may become inconvenient if you travel a lot and have to follow 'out of network' rules. But I'm glad you at least found something you can use for now.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
                  I have been investigating for a few months and once I get into mayo’s concierge program I think I will be ok. The whole concierge system is a back door way for the medical profession to allow patients to pay more than the contracted insurance amounts for better care. Somehow it skirts around the insurance and Medicare rules and allows the medical people to collect the “contracted amounts” plus additional funds from the patients. Unfortunately the HMO type medicare advantage plans give terrible medical care (IMHO)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 8 years, 3 months ago
    Death and taxes are the two absolutes in life. For me the only equitable tax is the "Fair Tax" or national sales tax. Taxing production is inherently bad. Taxing consumption creates an even burden and everyone has skin in the game. But this is way too simple and the looters will lose control thus it will never happen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
      Death is normally a natural event. Taxes for looting are man-made and not necessary. Statism cannot be fought by conceding statist premises while calling one form of it "Fair" and advocating an allegedly "even burden", which it is not. What good does it do to keep more of your income so that you can't spend it because of another coercive tax? No tax is more "inherently" bad than another. They all distort the economy and violate individual rights in different ways. It won't be stopped in the foreseeable future, but at least argue for correct moral principles and implement them where possible instead of conceding statism with bogus arguments of "Fair" coercion that is claimed to be not inherently bad.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
        Indeed, the term "fair" is often used, yet has no standard meaning. It depend oh who is using it and what values they have, which in government, consists of "how much can we squeeze".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
          The common denominator is that it stands for whatever people think of as the good. Don't make a PR campaign based on calling some variety of statism "fair".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
            No, but it does seem that any politicians definition of "fair" is never "fair". It pcks and chooses amongst their patrons. Fair would be equal treatment to all, and no need for an IRS, other to know you paid, as there would be no need for anything but a one page form.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
              Fair means just, not "equal treatment". There is to be equality under the law in general, not in economics -- and while there is a tax, not necessarily equal rates or equal amounts paid, but certainly not rates set to extract more from those who have something more to take. You pay for what you get.

              The politicians claim they are "fair" under their false collectivist and altruist moral premises. No one on our side should be promoting any kind of tax and the purpose of taxation today as inherently "fair".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
                Agreed, in general. I do disagree that "you pay for what you get", as I certainly do not perceive I get much of anything from government for the amount I have to cheerfully "donate".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
                  You pay for what you get under justice, not any variety of statism, including the fad notions of "fair" taxes vaguely called "equal".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
                    ewv, we just have different ideas of "justice". A state that levies fees and taxes on me, that a: I didin't get to vote on, and b) are clearly just money generators (such as Oregon's new 150.00 car purchase privilege fee), are at best, unconscionable looters, simply stealing what they can,any way they can. I gain nothing from it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 3 months ago
                      You cited an example of an injustice. So is the rest in any of the various forms. None of them is a "fair" alternative and should not be promoted that way.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
                        Well, that takes us back to "paying for what you get" which leads tothe fact taxes, in and of themselves have to be considered an injustice unless strictly for specific reasons that all agree on.
                        What I see is 98% of all taxes are levied across a large group and end up being for a specific thing or group. For instance, is a tax on gasoline connected to bike paths on roads? Isn't having bike paths and access strictly a bike person issue, and that the car drivers do not have a dog in that fight? Just one example of an unjust tax. Same with all the loopholes and exemptions within the system (which at the huge, monstrous size of the Tax Code alone, is evidence of an awesomely big number). Each is tailored to a specific group or condition.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago
      I would not object, if, and it's a big if, they eliminated all the rest. Look at Europe, they have a VAT, and never got rid of all their other taxes, as politicians NEVER get rid of a tax, fee, license, whatever...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Ben_C 8 years, 3 months ago
        Agreed. The Fair tax would replace all federal taxes. Not going to happen as you remarked about the VAT. Now that half of young adults prefer socialism / communism over capitalism I see a dark road ahead for producers. As I remarked to my accountant - "whats the point of busting my ass in my business when local state and federal governments feel entitled to my hard work."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo