Show HN: Effects of House and Senate Bill on California Residents

If you're right, then the IRS owes me a refund.

Now, there's a very valid moral question as to whether or not I'm entitled to have my healthcare subsidized by others in a pool and I'm fine having that conversation. From an economic point of view, I'm just shy of my mid-thirties with an advanced degree, been in the black with a self-funded business for the last 4-5 years, and have the potential to release products in the near future that could return millions in tax dollars. However, I may be robbed of that opportunity if I'm unable to purchase health insurance that covers cancer. Certainly, that's a frustrating proposition given that the only major misstep that I had was being unfortunate enough to become afflicted with a disease not under my control.

And, just in case someone is curious about high-risk pools, I actually currently carry insurance from one because the ACA marketplace in my state does not offer PPOs and I have one regular appointment out of state. Anyway, the coverage and cost of high-risk pools varied wildly from state to state. As an example, since I'm familiar with TX, prior to disbanding the pool, the law allowed high-risk individuals to purchase insurance at twice the prevailing rate from the pool. If I recall correctly, its pool used a PPO, which is no longer found on the exchange, so we'll use a gold plan EPO to approximate. In Harris county, the current premium for that rate is $429/month with an out of pocket max of $6350. If we went back to the old model of twice the prevailing rate, I'd have to budget $16,646/year, which isn't all that far off from what it used to be. Now, that's just TX and different states had different rules. In the state I'm currently in, the 2018 premium will be $514/month with a $5000 out of pocket max. And, to be clear, there is cheaper health insurance available, but my perspective of coverage and costs changed dramatically after my illness. Health insurance doesn't mean much if it doesn't cover the doctors you trust for a price you can afford.

Anyway, my point is that just because someone is in their 30's and healthy doesn't mean that their coverage will become cheaper or even attainable. Further, this has broad economic implications because it will quite simply force many of us out of the self-employed market because it's not responsible to carry an insurance plan that does not provide comprehensive coverage. This tax plan has been touted as helping small businesses, but it may end mine depending on what happens to the market in 2019.

Is that not how this all is supposed to work? the young and healthy help the old and sick, or the rich living in coastal cities help the poor living in rural areas.

So do you just hate health insurance in general then? Because all health insurance works like this.

That's absolutely incorrect. The individual mandate requires people purchase health insurance or face a penalty. This will do absolutely nothing to introduce additional insurers. The only thing it will achieve is increased premiums.

> The thing I've always hated about Obamacare was how healthy self employed folks are subsiding the unhealthy people

That's the core principle of insurance, taxes, and functional governments. Everyone contributes to the same pool even if they don't directly benefit from nor utilize every aspect.

If they keep charging everyone else and make education free for employees, the tuition they would have paid becomes taxable income.

Also, what was the point of the tax bill if you expect everyone to just rearrange the deck chairs so they don't have to pay any new taxes?

2) "creative accounting" and "skim more money" are pretty ridiculous ways to describe how research grants work. It's a system like any other. Disrupting it for no particular reason is anything but conservative.

Aren't you supposed to be taxed on the value of a good/service/gift received even if it was given to you for free? What is the "true value" of tuition?

I don't think waiving tuition will work, assuming tuition is taxed like most other things.

- A publicly searchable database, showing projects that derive as a result of public grants.

- Non-profit universities disclose administrative and faculty salaries like the UC and other states systems do, even if anonymized.

- Provide an explanation of why the size of their student bodies have stayed the same over the years while their endowments and operating income have ballooned, assuming their mission is to provide education as a public good [2].

[1] http://nexusresearch.org/

[2] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/09/harv...

As will people with estates in the 11 plus million range, large corporations, and pass through entities. It's very easy to cherry pick to set one struggling group (grad students) against another (people making 20-30k), but that ignores who the primary beneficiaries of the bill are.

Currently, these students are paid a small salary to attend these programs ($20-$30k per year), and their tuition is waived. Under the new tax rules, the tuition waiver counts as income. So for example, a student at MIT who makes ~28k/yr is going to be taxed like they earn $80k/yr.

The actual goal of the bill are the changes the congress choose to be permanent, which are the cuts on corporate rates, pass-through rates, and estate tax, which benefit a very small group of tax payers.

However, a proposal to automatically undo some of the changes if the "guaranteed to pay for itself" plan fails was scrapped. I'd rather have challenged those claiming the cuts would pay for themselves to put up or shut up: force retirement if the growth didn't appear.

Tax havens that everyone complains about have been taken out which I feel like should be discussed more. Global 10% minimum tax no matter where you make money. If Ireland you pay 1.3% you now pay 8.7% to the US, China 15% you pay 0% to the US. That is going to change the global structure completely and the IP changes haven't been analyzed either.

A lot of redundant tax breaks and loopholes are now gone like allowing deductions for executive pay etc, and no more needing to pay crazy taxes to bring overseas profits back, 0% so investment should be high. These 2 were very very important for US and both bipartisan but the politics of "reducing corporate taxes" is awful. No more hiding IP, storing assets without using them.

Bush ballooned the debt with stupid wars. Democrats doubled the national debt adding like 11 trillion over 8 years, completely botching up the healthcare allowing the 6 biggest insurance companies to sextuple profits, premiums and deductibles to go sky high and the deficit getting screwed next year. Cabinet budgets went up like crazy. Departments that had 30-50k employees for decades suddenly get 75k full time, bigger budgets approved every year.

Spending cuts are next on the docket, but the budget plan is supposed to cut 50B+ a year.

Basically I'd take $1T over 10 years over Democrats $11T waste over 8, Bush $8T mess over 8 though like Clinton, hope budget can be balanced. Obviously I wish it was revenue neutral and if it were up to me, I would cut corporate tax to 25%, foreign global minimum to 11%, individual top tax bracket to 45% for $2M+ (doesn't even target top cardiologist couples, just athletes and the very top). That should be revenue neutral and the best way to use a trillion dollars would be to invest it in research and new technologies. That has been the best catalyst for economic growth, increase in QOL, and driver of less poverty.

I'd take this over free college and admin making up 75% of faculty and tax dollars drowning in pensions

Thanks!

Additionally, the House plan raises the tax burden in those making less than 30k.

The Senate plan started out as being a 17% deduction of pass-through income on 1040, and then got ramped up to 23% before being passed. It is limited to 50% of W2 wages paid by the pass-through and excludes a bunch of service industry categories, but both of those limitations only apply to businesses where taxable income is below $250k single / $500k married.

I'm pretty aggressive on tax avoidance and even I'm surprised by how crazy this is.

So in a hypothetical example, I'm married and earn $600k from a consulting business. After retirement contributions to a solo 401k, maybe some charitable / mortgage / property tax deductions, etc, I get my taxable income to $500k. Which means I get to deduct another 23% of the business income (23% x $600k = $138k), dropping my taxable income to $362. And the Federal income tax on that is $80k. Plus another $40k or so for SE tax. So $120k in Federal tax on $600k in income, or 20%. If you live in a no-tax state, then that's all you pay. That's pretty crazy.

How would that work exactly? They're not breaking the law. Apple probably has IRS agents on its campus at all times for what amounts to an ongoing audit to ensure that they're not breaking the law.

Apple makes legal business decisions to shift profits to lower tax jurisdictions and lower their tax burden. And you're going to fine them for that?

Not only would that not hold up in court, it's crazy unfair. That's like fining someone who moves from CA to FL or buys a house or saves for retirement to save on their taxes. How DARE YOU make a decision to reduce your tax burden??!??!

It's one thing to have higher tax rates than some desperate third-world tax haven. It's another to have higher rates than highly developed countries with strong business environments (i.e. our competitors on the international stage). Many companies are happily shipping jobs over to the U.K., Canada, etc., to lower their tax burden.