• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the big bill hit Trump's desk next week?

Mulefoot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right, so you have not real argument to justify it. You're just playing word games.
 
gbg3 said:
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!!!
Click to expand...
Oh my.......obsessions are very unhealthy and can distort rational thinking. Just sayin'
 
BirdinHand said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe if it's a legitimate business purpose but not what we're talking about here.
 
Taylor said:
Maybe if it's a legitimate business purpose but not what we're talking about here.
Click to expand...
Not just for business reasons 🤷‍♀️

All within the same exact federal tax code that allows SALT to be deductible from federal income taxes.

Except SALT deduction came first.
 
Callen said:
Oh my.......obsessions are very unhealthy and can distort rational thinking. Just sayin'
Click to expand...
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.
 
gbg3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Trust me I'm not the lease bit concerned about your "we".
 
Taylor said:
Show me the food tax deduction that is not business related.
Click to expand...
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)

Salt free items - again the cost between regular and the specialty item - for someone with heart or kidney disease.

Lactose free, etc.

Any food purchases related to an underlying medical condition that cost more than “typical” food items - the difference between the cost of the regular and the specialized is tax deductible (abiding other stipulations such as being past a certain $ amount and/or past a certain portion of a persons income)

Same with any donations of food made to charitable organizations - again, tax deductible.


Lots of things are tax deductible. SALT were the FIRST deductions written into federal tax codes 🤷‍♀️


(Now whether or not it makes sense to itemize vs. not itemize is a completely different story. Deductions - including SALT - matter when you file federal taxes and itemize vs. taking standard deductions)
 
Polling , other than the Rasmussen daily poll, has been very unfavorable to Trump on all fronts including immigration and this bill is no exception. Here is the latest .

"Fifty-five percent oppose the bill, while 29 percent support it, with 16 percent not offering an opinion"

29% is barely the base.

 
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.
 
Taylor said:
Right, so you have not real argument to justify it. You're just playing word games.
Click to expand...
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.

I could just as easily claim that it's fair that I'm able to deduct SALT. And you could easily claim that I shouldn't.
 

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.
Click to expand...

Cry harder.

Reading this article was a genuine pleasure.
 
Hamish Howl said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Callen said:
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"?
Click to expand...
She does that a lot.
 
Well there could be a setback

apnews.com

Key Medicaid provision in Trump's bill is found to violate Senate rules. The GOP is scrambling

The Senate parliamentarian has advised a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to President Donald Trump's tax cut and spending bill doesn't adhere to procedural rules.
apnews.com apnews.com

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.
Click to expand...
 
gbg3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 .
 
Last edited:
gbg3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
She did in fact tear the guts out of the funding. You can have all that stuff, you just can't pay for it.
 
Callen said:
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 .
Click to expand...
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.

My guess is you are confused and are thinking about my concern about the off balance FMAP between the original Medicaid group and the Medicaid Expansion group.

"obsessions are very unhealthy and can distort rational thinking", like trying to respond to every comment I write and often struggling in your response preparation. The obsession is and always has been yours. I've suggested for years that we simply not engage, and you've rejected that suggestion every time.

gbg3 said:
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)."
Click to expand...
 
gbg3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This SNAP issue now appears to have been successfully retooled to meet the Byrd rules.

 
The Senate will take their first procedural vote on the bill, tomorrow at noon. The completed text is available to them tonight.

I think the House has left but if and when the Senate passes their bill, the House members will be given 48 hours to return and begin their process of accepting/voting on the Senate bill or making their modifications.

Adding: Just saw this in a piece from The Hill. So, maybe noon is "aspirational".

"But Thune acknowledged after the meeting that the schedule could slip, calling the Saturday vote “aspirational.”

“All of it depends on we got a few things we’re waiting on, outcomes from the parliamentarian. If we can get some of those questions, issues landed then my expectation is at some point, yeah, tomorrow we’ll be ready to go,” Thune told reporters.

“I said, again, aspirationally, that we’d try to do it at some point in the middle of the day,” he said of the plan to vote Saturday to proceed to the bill."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom