How will the “big bill” affect you?

[Anonymous]

My DD was planning to go to medical school but would need to take out loans- which med students have always had to do- and now doesn’t know whether she will be able to go. I feel like that’s a real shame because she’s smart but doesn’t have 200-300,000 dollars laying around to pay for it! The new bill caps federal student loans at $150k. She doesn’t have loans from undergraduate but can’t pay for medical school without loans. It’s something she and her peers are really worried about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really know I'm hoping for less taxes though.

..at the expense of the very poor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really know I'm hoping for less taxes though.

..at the expense of the very poor

The poor don't pay income taxes. In 2024, the top 50% of all taxpayers paid 98% of all federal individual income taxes. The bottom 50% paid the remainder. The tax burden on the poor is not going up; their government subsidies paid for by the top 50% of all taxpayers may or may not be reduced or eliminated, depending on specific circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

This is easy to argue with. What do you think happens to all the people who lose coverage? Do you think they will try to seek treatment in an ER? Who will bear the cost of that treatment? Do you think you might? Because the answer is yes. This idiocy will be costing *you* more money. Which lowers *your* standard of living. Same thing for all the rest of us.

Maybe they'll choose less expensive housing, or a less expensive car, or a less expensive cell phone plan, or maybe not to have a number of children beyond what they can afford, just like any other financial decisions all of us make all the time. If someone doesn't want to reallocate their funds to prioritize health insurance, that's their choice. We're speaking here of people with income, not the disabled with no options but the government. People always have choices, they just frequently would like to have everything they want without sacrificing elsewhere. Many voters seem to not be interesting in subsidizing preferred lifestyles, and view government subsidies as the last resort for those who truly have no viable alternative. A shift in policy towards the latter from the former is what the voters asked for and seem to have received.

You really don’t have a clue, so you. Choose a less expensive car? Shut your sanctimonious piehole — when I worked for Legal Services I had elderly clients who wouldn’t eat for 2 days so they could afford the bus fare to our office for a consultation after being denied Socisl Security disability. You have no idea how poor people in this country live. Most of my clients worked hard their whole lives until their bodies gave out from physical labor. Do you know what 40 years on your feet waiting tables does to your legs? I do, because I’ve seen my clients’ swollen varicose veins and watched them hobble into my office. A lifetime of no or little healthcare takes its toll too. I can’t even talk about the client i had who was in constant agony from his infected teeth but couldn’t afford to see a dentist.

You really need to get out of you privileged bubble and have some empathy.

People who are poor are poor for a reason. Sometimes it's bad luck, more often it's bad life choices, starting with their approach to their education, having children they can't afford, a failure to prioritize retirement savings over current spending throughout their lives, and other choices. The government provides a floor level of income and medical care for the truly indigent; others are expected to allocate their resources to their priority needs. If someone is denied Social Security disability benefits, it's because they are not disabled as defined not by them in their self-interest but by the government, and such decisions are not merely capricious even if you think otherwise. An appeal is always possible for wrongly decided cases.

The question is how much lifestyle support should be provided by the government versus by the individual through their own efforts. A "right" to being subsidized by the government is being examined more carefully and granted more sparingly, but is not being eliminated for all people under all circumstances. Pointing to the truly indigent who cannot support themselves is a red herring, the legislative changes occurring are reducing or eliminating benefits for the edge cases who are able to manage on their own without subsidies, even though such people will have to adjust their spending priorities to compensate for the absence of government largesse.

^what MAGA really thinks of the working class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really know I'm hoping for less taxes though.

..at the expense of the very poor

The poor don't pay income taxes. In 2024, the top 50% of all taxpayers paid 98% of all federal individual income taxes. The bottom 50% paid the remainder. The tax burden on the poor is not going up; their government subsidies paid for by the top 50% of all taxpayers may or may not be reduced or eliminated, depending on specific circumstances.

Poor people are going to pay for your potential tax cut in many ways that aren’t taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

This is easy to argue with. What do you think happens to all the people who lose coverage? Do you think they will try to seek treatment in an ER? Who will bear the cost of that treatment? Do you think you might? Because the answer is yes. This idiocy will be costing *you* more money. Which lowers *your* standard of living. Same thing for all the rest of us.

Maybe they'll choose less expensive housing, or a less expensive car, or a less expensive cell phone plan, or maybe not to have a number of children beyond what they can afford, just like any other financial decisions all of us make all the time. If someone doesn't want to reallocate their funds to prioritize health insurance, that's their choice. We're speaking here of people with income, not the disabled with no options but the government. People always have choices, they just frequently would like to have everything they want without sacrificing elsewhere. Many voters seem to not be interesting in subsidizing preferred lifestyles, and view government subsidies as the last resort for those who truly have no viable alternative. A shift in policy towards the latter from the former is what the voters asked for and seem to have received.

You really don’t have a clue, so you. Choose a less expensive car? Shut your sanctimonious piehole — when I worked for Legal Services I had elderly clients who wouldn’t eat for 2 days so they could afford the bus fare to our office for a consultation after being denied Socisl Security disability. You have no idea how poor people in this country live. Most of my clients worked hard their whole lives until their bodies gave out from physical labor. Do you know what 40 years on your feet waiting tables does to your legs? I do, because I’ve seen my clients’ swollen varicose veins and watched them hobble into my office. A lifetime of no or little healthcare takes its toll too. I can’t even talk about the client i had who was in constant agony from his infected teeth but couldn’t afford to see a dentist.

You really need to get out of you privileged bubble and have some empathy.

People who are poor are poor for a reason. Sometimes it's bad luck, more often it's bad life choices, starting with their approach to their education, having children they can't afford, a failure to prioritize retirement savings over current spending throughout their lives, and other choices. The government provides a floor level of income and medical care for the truly indigent; others are expected to allocate their resources to their priority needs. If someone is denied Social Security disability benefits, it's because they are not disabled as defined not by them in their self-interest but by the government, and such decisions are not merely capricious even if you think otherwise. An appeal is always possible for wrongly decided cases.

The question is how much lifestyle support should be provided by the government versus by the individual through their own efforts. A "right" to being subsidized by the government is being examined more carefully and granted more sparingly, but is not being eliminated for all people under all circumstances. Pointing to the truly indigent who cannot support themselves is a red herring, the legislative changes occurring are reducing or eliminating benefits for the edge cases who are able to manage on their own without subsidies, even though such people will have to adjust their spending priorities to compensate for the absence of government largesse.

Screw off you have no idea what you are talking about
Read the dam bill and project 2O25
This Bill will crush the economy people are going to die and costs for every thing will go up!
Did you not see when many of the so called tax cuts expire fi4 everyone but billionaires?.

I'm not a billionaire and will benefit from the tax cuts becoming permanent, as will many other taxpayers and voters.

The prices of goods and services is impacted by infinite variables, tax policies are merely one.

As for people dropping like flies because of changes to tax and social welfare policies, maybe so:

https://babylonbee.com/news/report-trump-bill-will-cause-175-billion-people-to-lose-medicaid-and-die

Or maybe it's a hysterical gross exaggeration reflecting a resistance to encouraging more self-sufficiency and less government welfare.

Why do conservatives have zero sense of humor? Defective brain? They actually think Babylon Bee is funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD was planning to go to medical school but would need to take out loans- which med students have always had to do- and now doesn’t know whether she will be able to go. I feel like that’s a real shame because she’s smart but doesn’t have 200-300,000 dollars laying around to pay for it! The new bill caps federal student loans at $150k. She doesn’t have loans from undergraduate but can’t pay for medical school without loans. It’s something she and her peers are really worried about.

Go to the Caribbean med school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD was planning to go to medical school but would need to take out loans- which med students have always had to do- and now doesn’t know whether she will be able to go. I feel like that’s a real shame because she’s smart but doesn’t have 200-300,000 dollars laying around to pay for it! The new bill caps federal student loans at $150k. She doesn’t have loans from undergraduate but can’t pay for medical school without loans. It’s something she and her peers are really worried about.

The solution is right there in front of you- be rich and pay out of pocket.

[Anonymous]

Likely to lose coverage under the ACA because our subsidies will be eliminated and we can't afford the premiums. Too much income to get Medicaid, which will be decimated as well in our state.

Basically we will have no health coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will get a large tax cut we don't need and didn't vote for. People will suffer because of it, and that hurts all of us.

This. I don’t care about saving on taxes. We are plenty comfortable and don’t need it.

But my heart breaks for those who are losing supports they need for their families.

At least half those people, if not more, voted for this. They voted for Trump and for Republican representatives and Senators.

+1 this is the silver lining for me. FAFO to come.

The bill is reprehensible but I didn't vote for it so oh well.

[Anonymous]

I don't really know. My very wealthy ex-husband voted for him but in the end I benighted.

I hope I benefit again because I was put thought the ringer with court costs and out of pocket attorneys fees that were not needed.

[Anonymous]

I am poor and I didn’t vote for Trump.
So far I don’t see much happening for me.
The generous standard deduction is staying, CTC is increasing (but I’m too poor to take full advantage). EITC is staying AFAIK.
I have health insurance thru my caregiver job, so if I lose medicaid it’s fine (secondary rn for me).
Too “wealthy” for SNAP.
If I ever qualify, I’ll surely be working 20 hrs a week unless disabled or old. There may be loopholes to “volunteer” even for fewer hours too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will get a large tax cut we don't need and didn't vote for. People will suffer because of it, and that hurts all of us.

This. I don’t care about saving on taxes. We are plenty comfortable and don’t need it.

But my heart breaks for those who are losing supports they need for their families.

At least half those people, if not more, voted for this. They voted for Trump and for Republican representatives and Senators.

+1 this is the silver lining for me. FAFO to come.

The bill is reprehensible but I didn't vote for it so oh well.

They won’t though. R’s will spin it in a way that blames immigrants, Dems, maybe a new bogeyman - who knows. Their voters don’t have the critical thinking skills to connect the dots.

[Anonymous]

I honestly don't know how we will be affected.

I'm a retired teacher, now substitute. Spouse still teaches full-time.

[Anonymous]

I’m a nurse at a hospital. I think it’s going to be a mess. At least I’m not in a rural area. Between research being decimated, grants cut, Medicaid cut, caps on loans (which will lead to less medical school students), Mr. Worm brain in charge of the nation’s health….Im just not optimistic.