Trump may delay signing tax bill to put off automatic cuts to Medicare until 2019

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCTC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JoshuaIsLord said:
My elderly relatives are on Medicare, you don’t frak with the Elderly.
Click to expand...
We are reaping the sins of “the greatest generation” who had no qualms about increasing their benefits well above what they paid in.

At some point there must be a reckoning and we need to make cuts. My first choice is to make both medicare and SS needs based, so people in the top 20% no longer receive their benefit checks.
 
But then it is welfare purely and may not be politically sustainable.
It also may have the unintended consequences of promoting too many to opt out of insurance, raising premiums for the rest.
 
dvdjs said:
But then it is welfare purely and may not be politically sustainable.

It also may have the unintended consequences of promoting too many to opt out of insurance, raising premiums for the rest.
Click to expand...
Medicare is welfare and it is bankrupting our country. Welfare for the rich.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Why should the taxpayer pay for what they can pay for themselves? They saved money for their retirement, old age is a predictable risk. One can set aside for it. No need for an expensive government bureaucracy.
Click to expand...
In reality, old age is not just predictable it is a binary eventuality. EVERY9NE either (1) dies while young or (2) gets old and dies. That certainty is the reason that it makes sense for a developed society to use government to administer a program that plans for old age such as Social Security - which is basically a forced savings program.

Because the success of Social Security requires a broad-based buy-in (i.e. everyone pays in) it is important that it function as a safety net for everyone (i.e everyone gets a benefit). Excluding the wealthy from benefits in order to cut costs undermines the whole retirement system - maybe that is what you would like. The real solution to maintaining social security is to remove the taxable earnings cap on the individual side of the equation and at least to gap up the cap on the employer side.

“Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to the taxable-earnings cap, with half (6.2 percent) paid by workers and the other half paid by employers. This taxable wage base usually goes up each year—it rose from $117,000 in 2014 to $118,500 in 2015, but stayed put at that level for 2016.” The cap is $127,200 for 2017.
 
dvdjs said:
I am not sure how to interpret this remark.
Click to expand...
I think the issue is why should we take from working people to subsidized the wealthiest segment of our society?
 
Last edited:
The article is so thin on details that one can’t really figure out whether Medicare is really to be cut or not.

Now, assuming it’s at least correct in saying Trump will have to cut existing programs by $120 billion, then one further needs to ask whether those are real cuts or just reductions in increases. The article, of course, doesn’t say.

Finally, there’s funding the government. Dems are apparently threatening to shut down the government if Trump does not accede to their demands on DACA and possibly some other things. Could be he’s actually waiting in order to have at least some kind of bargaining chip in that matter.
 
It is evidenced by information that I have already posted:

“Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to the taxable-earnings cap, with half (6.2 percent) paid by workers and the other half paid by employers. This taxable wage base usually goes up each year—it rose from $117,000 in 2014 to $118,500 in 2015, but stayed put at that level for 2016.” The cap is $127,200 for 2017.

Do you need for me to explain it further, or will you be able to figure out who is financing Social Security? Put your thinking cap on.
 
Last edited:
I paid into Social Security and Medicare all of my working life.

Now at age 66, stinkcat want’s the government to dump me off medicare and have me fend for myself.

Myself and just about every baby-boomer will vote against any politician who supports cutting Social Security or Medicare.

Jim
 
dvdjs said:
I am not sure how to interpret this remark.
Click to expand...
I answered with honesty.
We have limited resources and will need to reduce the high amount spent on the aged if we want to focus it on the young who don’t have any coverage. I’m not suggesting we cut them off completely, just curtail the more expensive treatments and drugs at Govt expense.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Now at age 66, stinkcat want’s the government to dump me off medicare and have me fend for myself.

Myself and just about every baby-boomer will vote against any politician who supports cutting Social Security or Medicare.

Jim
Click to expand...
I get your position but at some point it needs to become ‘means tested’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top