Trump's Policies Part 6
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
NYC mayoral candidate Brad Lander arrested by ICE in lower Manhattan
“I’m not obstructing I’m standing right here in the hallway, I asked to see the judicial warrant,” Lander can be heard saying in the video as the agents take him into an elevator. “You don’t have authority to arrest a U.S. citizen asking for a judicial warrant.”
NYC mayoral candidate Brad Lander arrested by ICE in lower Manhattan
City comptroller and NYC mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested Tuesday by ICE in lower Manhattan amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
web.archive.org
“I’m not obstructing I’m standing right here in the hallway, I asked to see the judicial warrant,” Lander can be heard saying in the video as the agents take him into an elevator. “You don’t have authority to arrest a U.S. citizen asking for a judicial warrant.”
Well, it looks like there's some interest in suggestions for how to achieve some of Trump's stated goals, but do it in a sane and effective manner.
I'll start with reining in federal spending and the national debt. The problem is that, even if DOGE had been handled properly (and it wasn't), it was aimed at the wrong issue anyway. The real money isn't in government salaries and bureaucracy. It's four things:
- Social Security
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- Defense
I view national defense as the federal government's main job -- keeping the citizens safe in their person. In addition to peace of mind, it's an economic issue. As in, if you're worried about a foreign military taking over the country, you're not likely to be terribly productive.
So I'm going to set aside cuts in Defense for the moment.
Among the other three things, Social Security and Medicare would be the easiest to fix. Keep in mind that there are no perfect solutions. Anything that fixes the problem of too little revenue and too much outflow will inherently involve raising taxes and/or limiting outflow.
Social Security
Here's a post I wrote in March of 2020. My thinking hasn't changed since then:
The original post contains details. But the Cliffs Notes version is that it recommends three things:
1. Remove the cap on SSI withholding, but cap the amount of the monthly check at $5K, no matter how much you paid in.
2. Phase in a full retirement age of 70. Might need to be 72.
3. Look at the numbers and see if #1 and #2 fix the problem. If not, look at the amounts paid to children (i.e., under 22) of people who contributed to SS, but didn't live long enough to collect.
Politically, #1 is easiest. #2 is achievable. #3 is hardest. It's a shame that longer life means some financial sacrifices to fund it, but the most dispassionate concept in the universe -- numbers -- dictates that it does.
What? You'd prefer to forgo the financial impact and die earlier? I think you’ll be in the minority on that one.
As I said in 2020, I get that there will be pain. I'd love to see another suggestion that solves the problem and is politically realistic but causes less pain.
Medicare
Has to be an increase in the age of eligibility, phased in over time from the date of implementation of the new eligibility requirements.
Say the law goes into effect today, and raises the age of eligibility to 70, phased in over 10 years. If you turn 55 today, you're eligible for Medicare at 65. But if you turn 55 next month, you're eligible at 65 and two weeks. If you turn 55 in August of 2025, you're eligible for Medicare at 65 and one month. And so forth until you get to Medicare eligibility at 70 years old.
A suggestion regarding Obamacare below will also help.
Medicaid
This one's a tough nut. We can reduce it, but the nature of the beast is that there is little to no opportunity for increased revenue. By definition the recipients have little to no income or financial assets. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
See the suggestion on the Affordable Care Act below.
Affordable Care Act (a/k/a "Obamacare")
As I stated in a post several years ago, I came around on Obamacare. Initially, I didn't like the federal government being in the healthcare insurance business.
But as the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was initially conceived, everybody had to be covered by an approved employer-sponsored plan, a privately purchased plan, or the ACA. Low-income people got help with the purchase of an ACA plan.
Then the first Trump administration destroyed the underpinnings of any insurance plan by allowing it to be optional. Surprise, surprise, surprise -- healthy young people opted out in droves.
Now you've made the pool of ACA policyholders inherently riskier because you've removed the low-risk generally healthy young cohort. You've also increased the Medicaid rolls because the young people who do get sick, but have opted out of the ACA, aren’t generally saving for medical expenses.
So bring back Obamacare as it was originally conceived -- everybody must have a health insurance plan. It might be from your employer. You might go out and buy one yourself. You might buy an ACA plan. But you will have one. If you don't do it voluntarily, we'll confiscate your tax refund and garnish wages to pay for it.
OK, that's enough for now. Immigration addressed later.
I'll start with reining in federal spending and the national debt. The problem is that, even if DOGE had been handled properly (and it wasn't), it was aimed at the wrong issue anyway. The real money isn't in government salaries and bureaucracy. It's four things:
- Social Security
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- Defense
I view national defense as the federal government's main job -- keeping the citizens safe in their person. In addition to peace of mind, it's an economic issue. As in, if you're worried about a foreign military taking over the country, you're not likely to be terribly productive.
So I'm going to set aside cuts in Defense for the moment.
Among the other three things, Social Security and Medicare would be the easiest to fix. Keep in mind that there are no perfect solutions. Anything that fixes the problem of too little revenue and too much outflow will inherently involve raising taxes and/or limiting outflow.
Social Security
Here's a post I wrote in March of 2020. My thinking hasn't changed since then:
GOP looking to cut SS and Medicare…again
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-10-19/column-gop-promises-to-gut-your-social-security-medicare-if-they-take-power So somebody explain to me: where does “government “ spending come into play with SS? Is it simply the administration? I mean I know there’s a fund for SS which working...
www.tidefans.com
The original post contains details. But the Cliffs Notes version is that it recommends three things:
1. Remove the cap on SSI withholding, but cap the amount of the monthly check at $5K, no matter how much you paid in.
2. Phase in a full retirement age of 70. Might need to be 72.
3. Look at the numbers and see if #1 and #2 fix the problem. If not, look at the amounts paid to children (i.e., under 22) of people who contributed to SS, but didn't live long enough to collect.
Politically, #1 is easiest. #2 is achievable. #3 is hardest. It's a shame that longer life means some financial sacrifices to fund it, but the most dispassionate concept in the universe -- numbers -- dictates that it does.
What? You'd prefer to forgo the financial impact and die earlier? I think you’ll be in the minority on that one.
As I said in 2020, I get that there will be pain. I'd love to see another suggestion that solves the problem and is politically realistic but causes less pain.
Medicare
Has to be an increase in the age of eligibility, phased in over time from the date of implementation of the new eligibility requirements.
Say the law goes into effect today, and raises the age of eligibility to 70, phased in over 10 years. If you turn 55 today, you're eligible for Medicare at 65. But if you turn 55 next month, you're eligible at 65 and two weeks. If you turn 55 in August of 2025, you're eligible for Medicare at 65 and one month. And so forth until you get to Medicare eligibility at 70 years old.
A suggestion regarding Obamacare below will also help.
Medicaid
This one's a tough nut. We can reduce it, but the nature of the beast is that there is little to no opportunity for increased revenue. By definition the recipients have little to no income or financial assets. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
See the suggestion on the Affordable Care Act below.
Affordable Care Act (a/k/a "Obamacare")
As I stated in a post several years ago, I came around on Obamacare. Initially, I didn't like the federal government being in the healthcare insurance business.
But as the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was initially conceived, everybody had to be covered by an approved employer-sponsored plan, a privately purchased plan, or the ACA. Low-income people got help with the purchase of an ACA plan.
Then the first Trump administration destroyed the underpinnings of any insurance plan by allowing it to be optional. Surprise, surprise, surprise -- healthy young people opted out in droves.
Now you've made the pool of ACA policyholders inherently riskier because you've removed the low-risk generally healthy young cohort. You've also increased the Medicaid rolls because the young people who do get sick, but have opted out of the ACA, aren’t generally saving for medical expenses.
So bring back Obamacare as it was originally conceived -- everybody must have a health insurance plan. It might be from your employer. You might go out and buy one yourself. You might buy an ACA plan. But you will have one. If you don't do it voluntarily, we'll confiscate your tax refund and garnish wages to pay for it.
OK, that's enough for now. Immigration addressed later.
Last edited:
Taxes almost certainly have to be raised. The logical place to start would be the wealthy but they control Congress, so that will be tough. I often hear folks long for the good ole days when America was booming after World War II, but marginal tax rates were awfully high back then.
The top bracket was 94% in 1945 on incomes of over $200K for singles, but that would equate to nearly 3.6 million today...
I understand the emotion of “stick it to the rich,” bamacpa, but see several issues.
First, the definition of “wealthy.” The general public defines that as “somebody who has a lot more money than I do.” Who exactly is “wealthy”?
Even if you agree on a number, do you define ”wealthy,” in terms of income or assets?
If income, do you make allowances for place of residence? After all, $100K a year household income in Manhattan is a lot less than $100K a year in Iuka, Mississippi.
Do you define “wealthy,” in terms of assets? If you tax an increase in asset value, do you also allow a deduction (and likely refund) when the value decreases? At what percentage is the increase taxed vs. the decrease?
For example, I have a $200K portfolio. The market increases 25%, and it’s now worth $250K. I pay tax on the $50K increase, never mind the fact that I haven’t sold a share or pocketed a penny of the profit.
Next year, there’s a recession, and the market tanks 40% (not that unusual over the course of a business cycle). My formerly $250K portfolio is now worth $150K. I paid tax on the $50K increase when the market went up. Do I get to deduct the $100K decrease now that it’s down?
Assuming so, is there a limit to the deduction, or do I have to spread it out over time — like the tax loss carryforward?
A corollary question: when my portfolio value increased by $50K, the gain put me in a higher tax rate — because, you know, more income should pay a higher percentage than a lower one….so progressive tax rates.
Now that I took a $100K hit to the chin, I’m in a lower tax bracket, so the deduction is worth less. Are you telling me I pay a higher tax rate on an increase in value, but get to deduct a lesser percentage on a decrease in value? Even though I never sold a share? Really?
And none of that begins to address how you’d quantify the change in value of assets that aren’t publicly traded — like a family business.
Mrs Basket Case and I have a halfway decent pile of assets — mostly publicly traded. Other than the taxes we pay on IRA or 401(k) withdrawals, we have little or no income. Are we wealthy? Why or why not? And how does the answer figure into the idea of “let the rich pay for it”?
Even if you do work through all that, how much money does it raise? As in, if you taxed all income over $500K at 100%, how much money would it raise? And how long would that fund the deficit? Do you assume going forward that those making over $500K will continue to do so? If they get to keep 0% of it, why would they? The most talented people just got a massive incentive to mentally check out.
The answer is that there simply aren’t enough “rich” people, however that might be defined. The solution to this problem will take everyone pitching in. — rich, middle class and poor. Nobody will escape the burden.
Last edited:
How about letting existing tax cuts, introduced in 2017, to expire?
How does that fit into your explanation? I don’t quite understand why we need to go into extremes when we have a well defined tax code and tax brackets while some politicians are trying to get into a mental gymnastics of “we cannot tax rich; thus, let’s cut their taxes”.
Last edited:
Kind of a corollary to there aren't enough rich people. It's not enough money, and it goes to the general fund, not to the programs that are causing the problem.
SSI and Medicare are funded differently, primarily through earmarked payroll deductions. So raising federal income tax rates wouldn't help fill in the hole that they currently cause.
That's why part of my suggestion for SSI is eliminating the salary cap subject to SSI taxes -- currently $176K.
SSI and Medicare were instituted when the life expectancy wasn't a lot different from the age for eligibility. IOW, the underlying assumptions are no longer realistic.
That's why the other main part of my suggestion is to phase in an increase in the age for full eligibility. FWIW, we've already done that once, for exactly the reasons cited, in the early 80s.
Also, just FWIW, the latest data available shows that over 98% of federal income taxes are paid by half the taxpayers. IOW, the other half pays little to nothing. There are reasons for that -- some are too young. Some are students. Some are retired. Some have low income. None of that changes the fact that half the population pays almost all the federal income tax.
And contrary to what politicians would have you believe, the higher incomes pay a disproportionate share. Here's a link:
Who Pays Federal Income Taxes? Latest Federal Income Tax Data
The top 1% accounts for a bit over 26% of income, but pays 46% of all federal income tax revenue.
The top 5% accounts for 42% of income, but almost 66% of tax revenue.
The top 10% accounts for not quite 53% of income, but over 75% of tax revenue.
Yes, we've all heard the stories of mega-million incomes paying little to nothing. But those are mulit-sigma outliers. They attract lots of attention and outrage, but are not the real problem.
I am aware of who pays what. But contrary to what politicians make you believe, the “rich” are getting more benefits from the tax revenue.
Take a DOD spend, for example. Sure, the military is important to a regular American to protect them from foreign invasion. But do the bottom 50% benefit from having 11 aircraft carriers and 750 military bases outside the US?
However, the top 1% do benefit the most from that, since these bases & carriers are protecting their economic interests.
Trump hotel in Qatar? Isn't it protected by the nearby US military base, which is maintained by US tax dollars? Why shouldn't people who benefit the most pay more for the services of the US military?
If that happens it will result in a massive tax increase for the middle class. As always in this country, the middle class end up paying all the bills. The 2017 Tax Cut? It wasn't a cut for me, my taxes actually went up because the bill severely limited the SALT deduction so my final tax bill actually ended up being more than if they had done nothing. Now, the Democrats want to allow the tax brackets to rise, while at the same time keeping the limitation on SALT. This will be a double whammy for me.
Let’s define “massive”.
If tax cuts expire then:
- The 24% rate would increase to 28%.
- The 32% rate would increase to 33%.
- The 37% rate would increase to 39.6%.
- Other brackets would also revert to their pre-TCJA levels, for example, the 12% and 22% rates would increase to 15% and 25%, respectively.
Does “2-3%” fits into the definition of the word “massive”?
Is not it "tax the rich” approach?
How is it different from increasing % in tax brackets?
I don't disagree with anything you said here.
Well, except for the leaving out of the corollary myth that goes like this:
"I'll make the rich pay their fair share."
That is so intentionally vague and nothing more than an appeal to human jealousy. Ok, let me act like one of my pompous education professors at the university: "What's a fair share and how do you know? And if you say a fair share is raising 35% to 38%, why wouldn't you raise it to 39% and thus raise more money?"
The 2017 tax cut was so egregious even some conservatives and GOP consultants were left with "you've got to be kidding me." So I don't disagree on that.
But here's a hint: you're not even going to approach balancing the budget with the liberal solution of "let's cut the defense department and raise taxes on the rich." So now.....what do you cut and how? I'll give you your defense cuts and tax increase - now give me YOUR spending cuts.
And this is where the rending of garments and fake umbrage of shoving Grandma off a cliff starts, indicating the person isn't even serious about deficit reduction, they're just trying to win more seats.
Democrats fake willingness to cut spending that isn't defense.
Republicans fake interest in reducing the deficit except when the President is a Democrat.
But again - I blame the voters. What happens when Congresspersons and Presidents take an honest attempt to reduce the deficit and address serious issues (1990 budget deal, 1993 budget deal, Obamacare)?
They get thrown out of office by an electorate mad at them doing what they're elected to do.
So the top 10% are paying the party bill for 3/4 of those at the party - and being told "you didn't pay enough."
And again, I don't even mind except what usually happens is this:
a) raise taxes now
b) immediate influx of money
c) the money raised that's supposed to solve the problem gets treated like an overtime bonus and spent on something else designed for a Congresscritter to get re-elected
d) wash, rinse, repeat.
The problem is that SSI and Medicare do, or are about to, run big deficits. The goal is to fix that within the context of what the population will realistically support. Not to make a political statement.
My suggestion has two aspects -- an increase in revenue and a decrease in outflow. Just as a disassembled pair of scissors can't do its intended job, neither part of my suggestion is sufficient without the other. Between the two, I think it'll fix the problem. Or at least make a huge dent until the Baby Boomers die off.
It's different from raising federal income tax brackets in that SSI is funded primarily through earmarked payroll deduction. Not the federal income tax. So raising federal income taxes wouldn't have any effect on SSI. Medicare is similar, but you didn't ask about that.
I'm not wedded to my suggestion. I'd love to see a better idea. Sounds like you might have one. What do you suggest?
This link provides 2 different tables - one for spending cuts and one for tax increases.
Ray Dalio: We Need to Cut the Budget Deficit Now
In Ray Dalio's forthcoming book "How Countries Go Broke" he argues that the United States' budget deficit should be cut.
time.com
I think that the best solution is a combination of both, since we cannot solve the deficit problem only with cuts or only with tax increases.
Guess when I turn 65.....and I'm not eligible for full until 67.
Social Security won’t be able to pay full benefits in 2034 if Congress doesn’t act | CNN Politics
Social Security won’t be able to pay full benefits in 2034 if Congress doesn’t act | CNN Politics
I will be 64 then and was just hoping it would hang in there for a while. I guess that money coming out of my check every month will benefit others. Some of it will be better than none of it though.
OK, let's move to Immigration
Trump is deporting illegal aliens. The policy started with illegal aliens who had committed crimes. I have no problem with that.
Now, it's more of a general dragnet, which is exceedingly short-sighted and has a lot of downstream consequences.
The problem is that we need immigrants for the growth necessary to support both government expenditures and the demand-driven manufacturing that will keep us from being dependent on unstable foreign supply. Not to mention the agriculture and construction industries.
Neither open borders (Biden) nor indiscriminate roundups (Trump) are the answer. The answer is controlled, vetted immigration followed by assimilation into American culture and citizenship.
You don't assimilate? Your desire to be a citizen isn't strong enough for you to do the work to get there? That's fine. You don't get the benefits of being an American.
As it stands now, illegal immigrants get housing, education in their native language and medical care for free for a long time. Some would call that compassion. It might be, but I think it's more like buying political support. In some places, they even allow non-citizens to vote. That is ludicrous.
We should have a vetted immigration policy. It would require staffing up to conduct the vetting, but I would view that as an investment in the economy that will benefit when the immigrants become productive and assimilate.
I'm OK with providing housing and food assistance for a short period of time. I'd say it starts to phase out at 90 days, and is completely done at 180. We will provide one year of instruction in English as a Second Language. After that, you pay for it. Or you speak the language and don't need it.
If you commit any crime of violence before you become a citizen, you are deported to your native country and never allowed back into the US. If you commit a felony of any description before you become a citizen, you are deported to your native country and never allowed back into the US.
You will be provided Medicaid-like care for the 180 days. After that, you are covered by an employer-provided policy, buy one yourself, or buy an ACA / Obamacare policy. Citizens might qualify for help with an ACA policy. You're not a citizen. You don't qualify. Become a citizen, and you will.
You will pay taxes and pay into Social Security as if you were a citizen. But you will not collect benefits until you become one.
I know all that sounds harsh. I'd prefer to call it tough love. It incents work, contribution to the economy of your new home, assimilation into American culture, and citizenship. We need all that. But human nature being what it is, there has to be both a carrot (benefits of citizenship) and a stick (forfeiture of monetary contributions) to incent the work needed to become a citizen.
The current system incents laying back and letting the Americans take care of you -- or rather, the half of Americans that actually pay taxes. Under the guise of mis-directed compassion, it therefore incents perpetual underclass status.
For a lot of reasons, we need immigrants who want to be contributing Americans. That's how America was built and how it will thrive in the future.
We don't need people who cause trouble and siphon off American resources with no intention of ever becoming providers of resources.
Vet people who want to come to determine the best way we can that they're legitimate. Incent assimilation. Incent citizenship. Don't incent consumption of resources without ever becoming a provider of resources.
I'm wide open to better ideas. If you don't like my suggestion, what do you think would be better?
Trump is deporting illegal aliens. The policy started with illegal aliens who had committed crimes. I have no problem with that.
Now, it's more of a general dragnet, which is exceedingly short-sighted and has a lot of downstream consequences.
The problem is that we need immigrants for the growth necessary to support both government expenditures and the demand-driven manufacturing that will keep us from being dependent on unstable foreign supply. Not to mention the agriculture and construction industries.
Neither open borders (Biden) nor indiscriminate roundups (Trump) are the answer. The answer is controlled, vetted immigration followed by assimilation into American culture and citizenship.
You don't assimilate? Your desire to be a citizen isn't strong enough for you to do the work to get there? That's fine. You don't get the benefits of being an American.
As it stands now, illegal immigrants get housing, education in their native language and medical care for free for a long time. Some would call that compassion. It might be, but I think it's more like buying political support. In some places, they even allow non-citizens to vote. That is ludicrous.
We should have a vetted immigration policy. It would require staffing up to conduct the vetting, but I would view that as an investment in the economy that will benefit when the immigrants become productive and assimilate.
I'm OK with providing housing and food assistance for a short period of time. I'd say it starts to phase out at 90 days, and is completely done at 180. We will provide one year of instruction in English as a Second Language. After that, you pay for it. Or you speak the language and don't need it.
If you commit any crime of violence before you become a citizen, you are deported to your native country and never allowed back into the US. If you commit a felony of any description before you become a citizen, you are deported to your native country and never allowed back into the US.
You will be provided Medicaid-like care for the 180 days. After that, you are covered by an employer-provided policy, buy one yourself, or buy an ACA / Obamacare policy. Citizens might qualify for help with an ACA policy. You're not a citizen. You don't qualify. Become a citizen, and you will.
You will pay taxes and pay into Social Security as if you were a citizen. But you will not collect benefits until you become one.
I know all that sounds harsh. I'd prefer to call it tough love. It incents work, contribution to the economy of your new home, assimilation into American culture, and citizenship. We need all that. But human nature being what it is, there has to be both a carrot (benefits of citizenship) and a stick (forfeiture of monetary contributions) to incent the work needed to become a citizen.
The current system incents laying back and letting the Americans take care of you -- or rather, the half of Americans that actually pay taxes. Under the guise of mis-directed compassion, it therefore incents perpetual underclass status.
For a lot of reasons, we need immigrants who want to be contributing Americans. That's how America was built and how it will thrive in the future.
We don't need people who cause trouble and siphon off American resources with no intention of ever becoming providers of resources.
Vet people who want to come to determine the best way we can that they're legitimate. Incent assimilation. Incent citizenship. Don't incent consumption of resources without ever becoming a provider of resources.
I'm wide open to better ideas. If you don't like my suggestion, what do you think would be better?
Last edited:
The answer to immigration is for Congressmen to take their collective heads out of their behinds and increase quotas on all work visas.
Amazon Prime Day Deals for TideFans!
Hangtime University of Alabama - Alabama Crimson Tide Bama Nation - University of Alabama Route Sign
Get this and many more items during Amazon Prime Day Deals (July 8-11)!
Get a Prime Free Trial!
