For those Selling their home or land..

[EE_Bota]

So who determines, and how should it be determined how much of my "wealth" I should be allowed to keep? Should there be a limit on how much wealth I should be allowed to have? There's a 500k deduction now but that can be changed perhaps?

The government determines how much you are allowed to keep. As far as how they determine it, pretty much they decide how much needs to be spent, and then they go looking for opportunities to make that amount appear. Often, a deficit results because (I presume) even though entitlements are desired by several groups, taxes are resisted by nearly all groups.

I know of no practical limit on the amount of wealth you are allowed to have. All taxes subtract from a persons wealth to some extent. It is thought that the tax money is used for things well worth the price. Also, it is sometimes obvious, but sometimes only alleged that your taxes are often used to provide you things of value. Some of these things you likely use daily. Some you may have never used.

As for the amount of the deduction, yes I am sure it can be changed in the future. Most entitlements have changed over time. As it turns out, people like to receive them, so sometimes the price goes up over time. In the case of this bill, revenue is being accumulated in advance, with many of the benefits to follow. This was likely done to make the tax burden easier, and to overcome some objections due to cost.

When I used to debate, I did not get to choose in advance which side of the argument I was on, so I had to try to put the best light possible on the side I was assigned. We were allowed to use facts, and rhetorical tactics, but we were not allowed to lie.

I am pretending I have been assigned the pro-bill side for a while. No actual minds are being changed due to any of this discussion, as best I can tell, so why not use it for as an excercise?

 

[turbo36]

So who determines, and how should it be determined how much of my "wealth" I should be allowed to keep? Should there be a limit on how much wealth I should be allowed to have? There's a 500k deduction now but that can be changed perhaps?

It is not "wealth" it is "income" realized from a financial transaction. From a taxing standpont it doesn't matter if your income comes from working a day job or investing, it is still income.

If we had a flat tax system in place the total gain would be taxed without the $500,000 gain exemption. I think we get a pretty good deal when it comes to housing; we can write off the interest and taxes and then when we sell we don't have to pay on most of the gain.

 

[dave1949]

I am pretending I have been assigned the pro-bill side for a while. No actual minds are being changed due to any of this discussion, as best I can tell, so why not use it for as an excercise?

That's a huge presumption - actual minds exist ???? :laughing::laughing::laughing:

I want you on my side in any debate :thumbsup:
Dave.

 

[TMR]

I am pretending I have been assigned the pro-bill side for a while. No actual minds are being changed due to any of this discussion, as best I can tell, so why not use it for as an excercise?

Mr Bota...While I believe myself to be a fiscal Conservative (one who pays plenty of taxes ...I also consider myself somewhat of a social Moderate...thus probably a Centrist much of the time. Recently I have felt myself "at odds" with both the Right and the Left as they seem to have become far more ideological vs practical as they attempt to solve our problems.

Relative to this thread...my concern is focused on the political dialogue...which has become both vitriolic and often dishonest...on both sides of the argument. I seem to have developed a "need" to rally against both the tone and the content of public debate (both sides)...as I am convinced that we will not solve our country's major problems without strong debate and eventual compromise from both left and right sides of the debate. If our politicians continue the approach that they will only get "their way" by being in complete control of government...we are in trouble.

This site may not be the best to see any progress in the debate...ie; moving toward ANY compromise Just as a solar energy site also likely would not support ANY compromise! Well...maybe my cause is hopeless

FWIW...TMR

 

[EE_Bota]

Mr Bota...While I believe myself to be a fiscal Conservative (one who pays plenty of taxes ...I also consider myself somewhat of a social Moderate...thus probably a Centrist much of the time. Recently I have felt myself "at odds" with both the Right and the Left as they seem to have become far more ideological vs practical as they attempt to solve our problems.

Relative to this thread...my concern is focused on the political dialogue...which has become both vitriolic and often dishonest...on both sides of the argument. I seem to have developed a "need" to rally against both the tone and the content of public debate (both sides)...as I am convinced that we will not solve our country's major problems without strong debate and eventual compromise from both left and right sides of the debate. If our politicians continue the approach that they will only get "their way" by being in complete control of government...we are in trouble.

This site may not be the best to see any progress in the debate...ie; moving toward ANY compromise Just as a solar energy site also likely would not support ANY compromise! Well...maybe my cause is hopeless

FWIW...TMR

I appreciate your reply.

You said something needed to be done to insure those without insurance. One test of that would be the same test I applied to TARP. Take the amount allocated to the stated problem, and divide that number by the stated number of folks to be helped. Avoid theatrics: it is difficult for a normal people like us to talk as a politician would. For example, If I cited urgency, and people dying, I would feel embarassed if you then challenged the delay in providing the benefits. (You see what I mean: "People are DYING and you are killing them, and I insist you stop a few years from now.")

In this case, one would take the number of people to be insured and multiply that number by some reasonable estimate of insurance costs.To the extend the amount exceeds expectations, that is either the amount "you are being had" or an indication of the extent that the bill is exceeding your expected costs and / or your expected goals.

R&R versus amendment. Imagine a bill that just insures people. If they stick to only that topic, it will be longer than ordinary people expect, but it need not be too long.

Now deal with obtuse / diverse funding. Involve student loans, and increased Pell grants.

If we realize that all of that amounts to 2700 pages, and those pages reference existing law, a substantial portion of existing law, the decision to repeal and replace vs amend is a legal technical question separate from whether it is precedurally viable to R&R.

Even if it is not viable to R&R, many people are for, and many against. If the voters are to have their say on election day, we need to know who agrees with us. For example, the house bill just passed tells us all (for or against the bill) who we need to vote for, if the health bill is our main issue.

I would like to see the same vote in the senate, and I would like to see where the president stands on it. I would like to see which way my senators vote. I would like to take those who disagree with me out of office. Others want to take my guy out of office. Let us vote, and let the votes be counted. I know we just had an election, but not all senators were exposed to the vote, nor was the president. I want them exposed to the voters on this issue.

Reid is right to oppose that, I suspect.


.

 

[TMR]

I appreciate your reply.

You said something needed to be done to insure those without insurance. One test of that would be the same test I applied to TARP. Take the amount allocated to the stated problem, and divide that number by the stated number of folks to be helped. Avoid theatrics: it is difficult for a normal people like us to talk as a politician would. For example, If I cited urgency, and people dying, I would feel embarassed if you then challenged the delay in providing the benefits. (You see what I mean: "People are DYING and you are killing them, and I insist you stop a few years from now.")Or "Obama is setting up Death Panels...both side guilty

In this case, one would take the number of people to be insured and multiply that number by some reasonable estimate of insurance costs.To the extend the amount exceeds expectations, that is either the amount "you are being had" or an indication of the extent that the bill is exceeding your expected costs and / or your expected goals.

R&R versus amendment. Imagine a bill that just insures people. If they stick to only that topic, it will be longer than ordinary people expect, but it need not be too long.

Now deal with obtuse / diverse funding. Involve student loans, and increased Pell grants.

If we realize that all of that amounts to 2700 pages, and those pages reference existing law, a substantial portion of existing law, the decision to repeal and replace vs amend is a legal technical question separate from whether it is precedurally viable to R&R.

Even if it is not viable to R&R, many people are for, and many against. If the voters are to have their say on election day, we need to know who agrees with us. For example, the house bill just passed tells us all (for or against the bill) who we need to vote for, if the health bill is our main issue.I will be interested if the "replace" bill ever surfaces...I anticipate multiple very fragmented bills that essentially reflect the amendments that both sides have already acknowledged...nothing to address the millions w/o health insurance OR any real attempt to try to reduce medical costs in general

I would like to see the same vote in the senate, and I would like to see where the president stands on it. I would like to see which way my senators vote. I would like to take those who disagree with me out of office. Others want to take my guy out of office. Let us vote, and let the votes be counted. I know we just had an election, but not all senators were exposed to the vote, nor was the president. I want them exposed to the voters on this issue.I see this as the primary Republican strategy...get as many on record "for" the current bill...do no accept any amendment changing the bill (out of fear it may improve it) and bank on winning that so desirable TOTAL control so there is no need to listen to the other side and certainly no need to compromise (a new four letter word)...then with total control the conservative will have it all their way and two years later the voters will revolt yet again...the voters WANT the middle...not either extreme

Reid is right to oppose that, I suspect. I guess he has to worry about elections too...rather than solving problems

.

I view the US voters as something like 30% Dem/30% Rep/40% Ind...most of the partisans vote for whoever their party nominates...the Independents move back and forth as they see the partisans inacting the ideas from their extremes (right or left)...which is NOT what the independents want...they want the best ideas from both sides to merge into common sense ideas and legislation...TMR

 

[EE_Bota]

I view the US voters as something like 30% Dem/30% Rep/40% Ind...most of the partisans vote for whoever their party nominates...the Independents move back and forth as they see the partisans inacting the ideas from their extremes (right or left)...which is NOT what the independents want...they want the best ideas from both sides to merge into common sense ideas and legislation...TMR

Which is not what happened in the bill.
I am an independent. I don't want either party to think they can count on me, because they can't.

But since I am unwilling to allign my vote with a given party, the parties can try to allign their stand with my vote. I usually have to vote for the lesser of two evils (so to speak) and sometimes I have to vote for the worst...but this is rare...having to do with something I will touch briefly below.

Independents have to vote for the candidate the parties throw-up, which is not an unfortunate choice of words, by the way.

I wish for no party to ever hold both houses and the presidency at the same time. I think that hurts my interests, since there is nothing to stop the controlling party from doing anything they wish.

I don't think you and I disagree much overall. You say amend, I say R&R. The difference may come from how we interpret the chances and effects of the R&R attempt, and how pernicious I perceive the current code to be.

Do you agree with comprehensive bills like are promoted, or are you more like me; of the opinion that bills should target exactly what they claim to target, and all provisions of the bill must be germane to the stated goal of the bill?

 

[TMR]

I don't think you and I disagree much overall. You say amend, I say R&R. The difference may come from how we interpret the chances and effects of the R&R attempt, and how pernicious I perceive the current code to be. I agree...I actually don't mind R & R if we can ever see the "replace" bill presented as a full concept...my thought is it won't really even begin to replace...just provide cover for their true desire, which is to repeal

Do you agree with comprehensive bills like are promoted, or are you more like me; of the opinion that bills should target exactly what they claim to target, and all provisions of the bill must be germane to the stated goal of the bill?*I agree with the concept of limiting bills to their intended purpose...not sure either party will give up the temptation to include unrelated content that they can't pass on its own merits

BTW...I do like that the bill avoided "single payer" and attempted to create an insurance exchange process. My thought is that a national insurance market with some level of minimum coverage offering required to be listed...along with no pre-exisiting conditions and some type of community premium rating...with perhaps some type of low income support structure...might do the job on the insurance side. Two primary complications are 1) how do you handle those that do not want insurance...I don't think you can keep letting them just go to emergency rooms to get care (we pay for that anyway!) and 2) what to do about health care cost containment. All politicians say they want to control costs...but none really have any ideas.

It would have been better to bite off in a couple of chunks...I think that is where Obama would have lost his Democratic (far left) support...and not gained any Republican support since they just want to see him "fail". He was in a box w/o Republican support for some middle of the road bill and they made it clear early that they were not going to play nice and compromise...which bring me back to that new four letter word "compromise"...which neither party can admit to doing

TMR