Right, so you have not real argument to justify it. You're just playing word games.
Right, so you have not real argument to justify it. You're just playing word games.Currently, their statutory federal tax burden is based in part on their statutory state tax burden.
It's neither fair, nor unfair, for SALT deduction to remain, or be removed.
It just is.
Oh my.......obsessions are very unhealthy and can distort rational thinking. Just sayin'Your dances, goal post shifts, or notable changes in tone have everything to do with you either finding out you were wrong or suddenly recognizing your previous comments are no longer likely to hold water and come true.
You only tossed in the Trump part to try to change the subject and focus from your change of direction dance, and I love that you actually went as far as to talk about how Thune was "seemingly not worried" about something you had made up about Trump - all of it just to try to shift the attention from your own comment dancing. The added part about the Thune reaction to (your imagined) unhappy Trump reaction was a second step beyond your usual dances. You were weaving quite an elaborate story out of your imagination. Would you like to add in how you think Johnson is likely feeling about how Thune is likely reacting to something Trump is likely unhappy about, all according to your imagination?
LOL!!!
Maybe if it's a legitimate business purpose but not what we're talking about here.Depending on what they are utilized for - car insurance, rent, food, gym memberships, even subscription services such as Netflix can be considered tax write offs
FYI.
Not just for business reasonsMaybe if it's a legitimate business purpose but not what we're talking about here.
If state taxes reduce my income, then so does my car insurance, rent, food, Netflix, gym membership, etc.
Almost your same exact last word line, every single time.Oh my.......obsessions are very unhealthy and can distort rational thinking. Just sayin'
Says someone from the party that lost touch with the working class in the lead up to the 2024 elections.
Trust me I'm not the lease bit concerned about your "we".Almost your same exact last word line, every single time.
It gets tough for you to justify those dances when people have seen your same patterns repeated so many, many times - that we understand the tactic so very well.
Show me the food tax deduction that is not business related.Not just for business reasons
So what? Why is that a meaningful distinction?Those things are not withheld from your income. They are expenses and are not based on your income.
Yes , and for a very good reason.......Almost your same exact last word line, every single time
The cost of gluten free bread for someone with celiac’s disease is tax deductible (the difference in cost between gluten free and regular bread)Show me the food tax deduction that is not business related.
So what? Why is that a meaningful distinction?
No word games. 'Fair share' arguments are just emotional pleas to make people feel something so they'll give in. It's manipulative and meaningless.Right, so you have not real argument to justify it. You're just playing word games.
The Senate parliamentarian has rejected several controversial provisions in the GOP’s tax and spending package over the past few days.
Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough’s decision on Thursday to reject key Medicaid cuts in the bill enraged hard-line Republicans, who called on Senate leaders to overrule or fire the longtime Senate referee.
Gosh, I hope not. If she has ripped out making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, the big border piece, and the military boost (including shipbuilding, Golden Dome funding, addressing a depleted ammunition arsenal, and funding for Air Force strength in the Pacific) - the things I consider the guts of the bill, I'll be very disappointed.Apparently the parliamentarian has been ripping the guts out of the bill. All the bits that violate the senate's rules. Which is most of it.
She does that a lot.What does that even mean? Dance? What is the "dance" you are suggesting between those two posts? You really post silly things when you try so hard to make up something out of thin air. Or maybe you are just cranky that your BBB has hit a snag and in particular it looks like the "provider tax" stays.
Please explain your "dance " comment.
The first post was about the breaking news on the Parliamentarians ruling creating a snag? Do you disagree it's a snag?
The next post was about Thune's decision not to contest the ruling as well an observation that the removal of the "provider tax" piece may make it easier for some Senators to vote for the revised bill.
Where is the "dance"?
he Senate parliamentarian has advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to President Donald Trump’s tax cut and spending bill does not adhere to the chamber’s procedural rules, delivering a crucial blow as Republicans rush to finish the package this week.
Guidance from the parliamentarian is rarely ignored and Republican leaders are now forced to consider difficult options. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. Additionally, the Senate’s chief arbiter of its often complicated rules had advised against various GOP provisions barring certain immigrants from health care programs.
Republicans scrambled Thursday to respond, with some calling for challenging, or firing, the nonpartisan parliamentarian, who has been on the job since 2012. Democrats said the decisions would devastate GOP plans.
The issue is paying for those things isn't it?Gosh, I hope not. If she has ripped out making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, the big border piece, and the military boost (including shipbuilding, Golden Dome funding, addressing a depleted ammunition arsenal, and funding for Air Force strength in the Pacific) - the things I consider the guts of the bill, I'll be very disappointed.
She did in fact tear the guts out of the funding. You can have all that stuff, you just can't pay for it.Gosh, I hope not. If she has ripped out making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, the big border piece, and the military boost (including shipbuilding, Golden Dome funding, addressing a depleted ammunition arsenal, and funding for Air Force strength in the Pacific) - the things I consider the guts of the bill, I'll be very disappointed.
Hmmm, provide those quotes about my passion Callen. I found a total of one quote (below) from me regarding Medicaid provider taxes - and it is pretty informative since it was from a day when I was working to gain a better understanding of how they worked, and I was in a thread where it looked like no one even knew what they were. Here it is and maybe it will help you learn too.The issue is paying for those things isn't it?
I don't recall you being passionate about the border piece or the military piece although I'm certain you are very supportive of that spending. Mind you I do recall you being very passionate about modifying/eliminating the Medicaid provider taxes .
I wonder about the understanding of every single person previously posting on this thread, of the often abused use of the Medicaid provider tax (which didn't exist until the 1980s and, when it became apparent how it could be easily abused, had to have its first restrictions put on it in the following decade). Is there "zero chance" you and the others posting above, have any knowledge or understanding about it? Not one of you has yet actually discussed a thing about the "Medicaid provider tax".
Here is some info from a 2023 piece from "The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget":
"While the formulas that determine federal and state contributions are meant to reflect state need, these formulas have been subverted by numerous state schemes that reduce state general fund financing, inflate federal spending, and increase health care costs. We discuss this issue generally in an earlier issue brief Time to Fix Medicaid Financing Schemes. The most utilized schemes, by far, involve taxes imposed on health care providers and related entities, or provider taxes.
Despite some federal restrictions on state use of provider taxes, these taxes continue to grow. Provider taxes are currently the second largest source of funding for states’ share of Medicaid costs behind general funds. And although rules aim to limit states’ use and abuse of these taxes to boost their federal funding, states continue to find ways to utilize provider taxes in order to shift more and more Medicaid costs from the state onto the federal government, distorting the intended shared responsibility between the federal government and the states.
More specifically, the federal government covers over 5 percent more in Medicaid costs than it would without various state financing schemes.2 With federal debt approaching record levels while states are flush with cash, policymakers should work to rein in excessive federal Medicaid spending by limiting the use of provider taxes to inflate reported Medicaid costs and shift costs onto the federal government."
Then, the CBO regularly provides options for reducing the federal deficit, including periodically discussing "Medicaid provider taxes", which have become quite an increasing FMAP burden. This from 2024:
"Limiting or eliminating states' use of provider taxes in financing Medicaid has periodically been identified as a way to reduce federal Medicaid spending. In the early 2010s, there were some proposals to limit or eliminate states' use of provider taxes, but provider tax proposals were not a focus in the past couple years. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) included limiting states' use of Medicaid provider taxes in its most recent list of options for reducing the deficit, as it has done in previous iterations of that list.
CBO provided three policy options for limiting states' use of Medicaid provider taxes:
- 1. Lowering the safe harbor from 6.0% to 5.0% (savings of $48 billion from FY2025 to FY2034);
- 2. Lowering the safe harbor from 6.0% to 2.5% (savings of $241 billion from FY2025 to FY2034); and
- 3. Eliminating states' ability to use Medicaid provider tax revenue to finance Medicaid (savings of $612 billion from FY2025 to FY2034)."
This SNAP issue now appears to have been successfully retooled to meet the Byrd rules.Has Thune overruled the parliamentarian on anything yet, during this process? I think he's accepted her rules or worked with her in every case. I read yesterday how the Senate is potentially retooling a bit of the SNAP (state responsibility, I think) piece she previously overruled and it is now being considered by her. I've got to leave but I'll look for that link when I get back in about an hour or so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?