I am a fed retiree with retiree health. I was bracing for all the changes in the House bill, but I just looked over the soon to be signed bill this morning, and I don't think the SALT deduction will change my decision to use the standard deduction. So for me --no obvious personal financial effect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will affect me in that I will be living in a sh$thole police state defined by cruelty and corruption. Maybe I will save some in taxes but everything and everyone will suffer. Science, medicine, environment, safety standards, basic rights, and desperate people dying and getting sick.

This.

Yep ICE now has a budget of 45 billion. ICE now has a budget bigger than Poland’s defense budget and just under Israel’s. The US marines have a budget of 57 billion.

When you have an expensive hammer it will be used on everything.

Anonymous wrote:The no tax on tips or overtime are both capped and end after 2028. The extra deduction for seniors above the one in 2017 ends around then. The infant accounts require you to pay in after the 1k freebie. So MC and LMC bennies are temporary while billionaire cuts are permanent.

Of course. These promises were like shiny ornaments that Trump held out to people to get their votes.

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.

Anonymous wrote:1. This bill affects every single person that is not the 1 percent
2. It’s called trickle down effect
3. Preexisting conditions will be gone, so will parts of the ACA which means your medical bills and insurance costs just went up ten fold at min
4, Electricity costs going up 30 percent because of this bill
5. ICE monies why in the world do our taxpayers dollars go to fund that utter shit in the amount in that bill that now ups the national debt, maga can not do math. Republicans are not fiscally responsible
6. Job losses are going to be huge which means the economy is going to keep tanking which affects every single thing you buy

I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that my medical bills and insurance costs will not go up ten fold at min, and that electricity costs will not go up 30 percent.

1. This bill affects every single person that is not the 1 percent
2. It’s called trickle down effect
3. Preexisting conditions will be gone, so will parts of the ACA which means your medical bills and insurance costs just went up ten fold at min
4, Electricity costs going up 30 percent because of this bill
5. ICE monies why in the world do our taxpayers dollars go to fund that utter shit in the amount in that bill that now ups the national debt, maga can not do math. Republicans are not fiscally responsible
6. Job losses are going to be huge which means the economy is going to keep tanking which affects every single thing you buy

The big bill will not impact me personally. My husband and I make $700,000 combined, we live in the DC metro area so we have access to healthcare, we both work so we have healthcare, etc. That said it does impact me emotionally because I have empathy for those that it will impact! I see the transfer of wealth from poor to rich, and that sickens me to my core

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.

Feel free to send a check to Uncle Sam to assuage your guilt. It's an unconditional gift.

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:


At Pay.gov, you can contribute online by credit card, debit card, PayPal, checking account, or savings account.
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and, in the memo section, notate that it's a gift to reduce the debt held by the public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Why on earth would they want to send money to the US Government? You think your sarcasm is cute, but you are disgusting. People with $$ hopefully will be giving some to their community.

The OP is discussing the tax aspects of the legislation, not whether or not people should engage in philanthropy. If you think your taxes are too low, you can voluntarily send more in. Or do you think only other people should pay more, not you?

Yes, I think billionaires should pay more than me. I think people making $50M should pay more than me.

Anonymous wrote:It will affect me in that I will be living in a sh$thole police state defined by cruelty and corruption. Maybe I will save some in taxes but everything and everyone will suffer. Science, medicine, environment, safety standards, basic rights, and desperate people dying and getting sick.

This.

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.

Feel free to send a check to Uncle Sam to assuage your guilt. It's an unconditional gift.

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:


At Pay.gov, you can contribute online by credit card, debit card, PayPal, checking account, or savings account.
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and, in the memo section, notate that it's a gift to reduce the debt held by the public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Why on earth would they want to send money to the US Government? You think your sarcasm is cute, but you are disgusting. People with $$ hopefully will be giving some to their community.

The OP is discussing the tax aspects of the legislation, not whether or not people should engage in philanthropy. If you think your taxes are too low, you can voluntarily send more in. Or do you think only other people should pay more, not you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider that the cuts to Medicaid will lead to increased healthcare costs and/or lack of healthcare facilities for everyone. Do you want to live in a country with a class of people who don’t get healthcare? It’s disgusting.

Reverting to a work requirement of 20 hours per week for healthy non pregnamt adults is not an unreasonable burden.

Except the vast majority on Medicaid programs are kids, elderly and disabled---people who cannot work.

Also, where are these 20 hour a week jobs? They aren't in every state. I know people who have been looking for months and not found something.

Also the requirement to constantly reapply will bog everything down is massive papework.

It will be a crapshow of amazing proportions.

My kid just got a 20-hour a week job yesterday as a cashier. He applied to three places, interviewed at two, and got a job - all within biking distance of our house- with zero work experience and with a 16 year old male’s executive function capabilities.

I’m not saying that all the people who need to meet these requirements will have the same experience but it’s not an impossible thing.

I agree that the requirement to constantly reapply will be a crapshow of amazing proportions.

You live in such a bubble. My kid got a part time job this summer at a restaurant after great effort. She applied to over 100 positions, 99% of which never responded. She tried walking into places in person and was told “apply online.” So right away there you have to have access to a computer and internet, which you understand, many poor people do not have. You could do these applications on the phone but it’s very difficult and time consuming; every application requires creating a profile with login and password etc. When she got interviews, they were all auto generated emails that said “here are the times we can see you and if you can’t make one of these, we can’t reschedule.” No human to call or follow up with.

Once receiving the job, she finds her schedule varies wildly. The permanent workers complain because they want more shifts but the employer won’t give them because then they’d have to pay benefits, but then they can’t take another part time job because of the unpredictability of the shifts.

Also, in a six hour shift where she is on her feet moving, cleaning and carrying things constantly she gets no breaks at all; not even to go to the bathroom. Yes, Virginia law has no requirements for food or bathroom breaks, even for an 8 hour shift. Not all people who are allegedly “able bodied” could handle this day in day out. It’s like you’ve never met anyone with diabetic neuropathy, or plantar fasciitis, or Crohn’s, or uncontrolled asthma — you think the world is made up of people like your college age son?

Here’s an experiment. Take your kids bike away for a month, put him in a pair of $15 canvas shoes from Target, give him enough bus fare for 2 days and $20 for groceries tell him he has to feed himself and see how he does. He’ll have a huge leg up with no rent payments. Go ahead, I dare you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider that the cuts to Medicaid will lead to increased healthcare costs and/or lack of healthcare facilities for everyone. Do you want to live in a country with a class of people who don’t get healthcare? It’s disgusting.

Reverting to a work requirement of 20 hours per week for healthy non pregnamt adults is not an unreasonable burden.

Except the vast majority on Medicaid programs are kids, elderly and disabled---people who cannot work.

Also, where are these 20 hour a week jobs? They aren't in every state. I know people who have been looking for months and not found something.

Also the requirement to constantly reapply will bog everything down is massive papework.

It will be a crapshow of amazing proportions.

My kid just got a 20-hour a week job yesterday as a cashier. He applied to three places, interviewed at two, and got a job - all within biking distance of our house- with zero work experience and with a 16 year old male’s executive function capabilities.

I’m not saying that all the people who need to meet these requirements will have the same experience but it’s not an impossible thing.

I agree that the requirement to constantly reapply will be a crapshow of amazing proportions.

Your anecdote isn’t the norm, despite your rationalization. At all. Kids the same age. Please read in major news outlets about college grads not getting jobs, their unemployment rate is significantly higher. Know adults looking for a year. Shut it!

If you don't see the difference between a 16 YO looking for a part-time summer job and a college grad looking for their entry level position, I don't know how to help you. Yes, PP's anecdote IS the norm. There are plenty of part-time, hourly jobs available if you would get out of leafy McLean once in a while.

Funny. We know tons of kids who can’t get PT work rn. Also, you’re advocating for adults to take those roles.

It will affect me in that I will be living in a sh$thole police state defined by cruelty and corruption. Maybe I will save some in taxes but everything and everyone will suffer. Science, medicine, environment, safety standards, basic rights, and desperate people dying and getting sick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you all wasting your time debating MAGA ghouls? They don’t care! The cruelty is literally the point. They are morally bankrupt, don’t waste your breath. Many call themselves Christians lol

We were at our neighbors house last weekend and talked about this. They are Christian and voted for Trump. We aren’t and didn’t. They don’t like everything he’s doing.

I would say they do care. They are heavily involved with helping people and are in a big organization of like minded people who help people. They put their money where their mouth is both literally and figuratively. They did express that they don’t believe that the government does a good job of helping people and we all should be helping people.

I disagree that all people who voted for Trump are ghouls or cruel or are morally bankrupt.

Anyone who voted for him in 2024 knew exactly what they were supporting. They knew was he was capable of and thought it was acceptable.

Morally bankrupt 100%.

X1000 I bet their help is limited to certain groups. Sure, he’ll give his shirt to his neighbor, but only if his neighbor is a white man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you all wasting your time debating MAGA ghouls? They don’t care! The cruelty is literally the point. They are morally bankrupt, don’t waste your breath. Many call themselves Christians lol

We were at our neighbors house last weekend and talked about this. They are Christian and voted for Trump. We aren’t and didn’t. They don’t like everything he’s doing.

I would say they do care. They are heavily involved with helping people and are in a big organization of like minded people who help people. They put their money where their mouth is both literally and figuratively. They did express that they don’t believe that the government does a good job of helping people and we all should be helping people.

I disagree that all people who voted for Trump are ghouls or cruel or are morally bankrupt.

The government does a fine job if not a perfect job. There is always room for improvement, but there will be no improvement the more it is defunded. So it is a self-fulfulling prophecy.

The patchwork of charities and nonprofits that fills the gaps (or tries to) will never have the same impact.

I get that it is ideological to them, but vulnerable people need and want help. They aren't there to make people feel good and virtuous for 'helping' them. I think about the woman in my community who runs a small charity that supports families with kids with cancer. She is constantly posting pics of herself visiting them in the hospital and asking for money for the org. I mean that is great and all but then she turns around and supports Republican policies. To my mind she cares about the personal fulfillment of her actions than actual effective policy.

That’s your mind, just judging a woman. That doesn’t mean what you’re thinking is right.

This has nothing to do with judging. It has to do with evaluating and implementing effective public policy.