No, Tax Cuts Don't Kill People


#1

No the tax cut will not kill anyone.
No one will lose their health insurance unless they chose to dump it.
And yes, he media and democrats lie.

When the Senate passed their tax reform bill earlier this month, Republicans were excited that the new law would cut taxes. Liberals thought it would kill people. As the legislation went through the Budget Committee, protesters inside the Capitol chanted, “Don’t kill us, kill the bill.” Larry Summers, a top economist in the Obama administration, claimed that 10,000 people a year will die if this bill is signed into law, and many others have made similarly apocalyptic predictions. But regardless of your stance on tax reform, the idea that a moderate reduction in taxes will kill people isn’t just wrong – it’s absurd.

A Tax Bill as “Armageddon”

Don’t tell that to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, though, who called the tax cut “Armageddon” and said that this was a debate over “life and death.” Critics like Pelosi point to the provision of the Senate tax bill that repeals the individual mandate, an element of the Affordable Care Act that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. They argue that repealing it will undermine Obamacare and deny people the health care coverage they need to survive.

If that’s what they choose, it’s a far cry from murder.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted that this would boot 13 million people off of their health insurance and “cause premiums to skyrocket.” His numbers come from the well-respected Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which found that a repeal of the individual mandate would mean that 13 million fewer people have health insurance by 2027 and average premiums would rise by about 10 percent each year over the next decade. So by ripping people’s insurance coverage away and pricing them out of their healthcare, the GOP has blood on their hands, right?

Not really. Many of the 13 million people who “lose” health insurance with a repeal of the mandate, which forces people to buy insurance on the private market, are really just being given a choice. They don’t get kicked off of their insurance, but rather now they’ll be allowed to decide if coverage is worth the cost.

Still, with fewer people insured, even if it’s their decision, won’t more people die? Not according to the National Institutes of Health Study who found that there’s no relationship between mortality risk and whether you are insured or uninsured. There still might be some negative impact on people’s health or ability to receive preventative care, but if that’s what they choose, it’s a far cry from murder.

Helping the Poor as Attacking the Poor

Rising healthcare costs could be dangerous, but Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, secured passage of a bipartisan bill that will reinstate cost-sharing subsidies and another bill that will help reduce premiums in exchange for her vote to advance the tax bill. No one’s going to die just because the individual mandate gets repealed. Instead, we’ll be rid of an incredibly regressive tax penalty mostly paid by the working class. Doomsday Democrats should explain why they want to keep punishing people who can’t afford health insurance before they accuse Republicans of attacking the poor.

That sounds like it would help the working class, not threaten their livelihood.
Its opponents insist that this murderous tax bill will blow a $1.5 trillion hole in the budget and argue that increases in the deficit will push Republicans to make cuts in the social programs people rely on to survive. But concerns about tax reform’s impact on the deficit are overblown. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a prominent conservative economist, has pointed out that $500 billion of this debt is set to occur anyway if expiring cuts get extended. Of the remaining $1 trillion, he says that “somewhere between $400 billion and $600 billion will be offset by additional growth.”

Even if some debt gets run up, it’s unlikely that Republicans will actually cut social spending. On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump promised voters that he would “protect and save” Social Security and Medicare. Many of the Republican party’s core constituents are vigorously opposed to cuts in these programs which they rely on. Rolling back the welfare state is never easy – just look at how quickly the Republican attempt to repeal Obamacare imploded. For better or worse, much of our social spending is here to stay.

Despite all their talk about death and destruction, Democrats have overlooked the ways this tax bill could help the lower class. They’ve painted this cut as a handout to the top one percent, but the Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank, found that if the Senate bill gets signed into law, all income groups will see an increase in their after-tax incomes in 2018. Per their analysis, this reform would also create 925,000 new jobs, boost economic growth, and lift wages by 2.9 percent. That sounds like it would help the working class, not threaten their livelihood.

If anything, the real threat isn’t tax cuts – it’s economic illiberalism. Despite the fact that 100 million people have died under Communism in the last century, 10 to 20 percent of Americans were willing to say that they thought leaders like Che Guevara and Joseph Stalin were heroes in a recent survey from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. In that same poll, more than half of millennials said they would prefer to live in a socialist or communist country than to live in a capitalist one. Liberals should be less worried about letting people keep their own money and more worried about the path their party is headed down. Cutting taxes won’t kill anything except maybe Democrats’ chances of winning in 2018. They can keep trying to paint tax cuts as a form of assault, but people might actually like being able to keep more of their own money.


#2

It’s a pipedream but cutting social spending needs to be done. Some minor cuts and reductions over the course of the next 50 years will save us billions of dollars. Social Security and Medicare are runaway trains. The sooner we come to grips with that then the sooner we can all brace for the impact, clean up the damage, and start over.


#3

One day soon when investors give the finger to US Treasuries and demand a risk premium as they dislike our 20Trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities our elected officials will have hard decisions to make.


#4

The tax cuts will spur the economy create better paying jobs and create more investment by corporations and individuals. Something the Liberal Keynesian Demorats don’t know anything about.The only thing they know to do is create chaos.The only way they would approve buying health insurance across state lines would be if they had a vested interest in those insurance companies. Don’t they believe the consumer has a right to choose?If both sides were serious about Social Security they would eliminate the income limit on the Social Security tax . But that is to easy and we wouldn’t want to upset the Hollywood Elitists.


#5

And the impact???

  1. Employers would pay more in taxes with unlimited match.
  2. Employers would reduce expenses if unable to raise prices. (Expense=people)
  3. The government would raise the maximum payout as that is the way SS is structured.

Government acts, business reacts.

Perhaps they should revert to the original SS. You contribute, you gat a payout.

Today we have:

  1. Spouses who have never worked getting SS.
  2. Children of deceased spouses receiving SS.
  3. Disability under SS.
  4. Children of disabled getting SS.
  5. People retiring at 62.5 getting SS.
  6. A host of ways to boost SS benefits.
  7. SS retirement age has not ben adjusted for longevity.

At inception SS retirement age was 65, liv expectancy, 65.
Today retirement as early as 62.5 life expectancy close to 80.

Now you know why SS is in dire straits.


#6

Nailed it. They only believe that the consumer has a right to choose once they’ve stacked the deck in their favor. They do that by making deals that will line their pockets, but drain ours.


#7

I agree that if you pay into SS you should receive it. Currently SS is a pay as you go system . I agree there should be a time limit on children receiving SS.Wives should be able to collect husbands SS. What should we do put them on Welfare and cost taxpayers more???
With increased life expectancy the age to collect could be tweaked but we shouldn’t have people working until 80 to retire.
SS disability needs to be investigated because there is some abuse hurting those that are truly disabled
Believe it or not there are people who should retire at 62 from their job because of how strenuous it is. How would you like to hang drywall lay cement blocks or be a steelworker ( real dangerous job) until some bureaucrat decides you may retire???


#8

SS Disability it’s probably one of the most abused federal assistance programs that we have. There’s so many people that scam the system because Democrats made it easy for them to do that. You can just look at the spike in disability claims after Obama took office. It’s staggering and to me it looks intentional. After the economy went down the drain in 08 it was all too easy for Obama to get people hooked on the welfare fix. All you had to do was find a shady doctor, complain about some back pain, get really good drugs and a biweekly check. Now look at what we have…millions of Americans out of work by choice, hooked on pain pills, and taking advantage of every single federal benefit program that there is.


#9

There is, 18.

I had a co-worker several years ago he had 2 children. His wife who works died in childbirth. He mad 6 figures a year. Both children received SS checks until thy were 18. 12 and 14 years.

As far as longevity, people could easily work until 68-70.

The problem with SS is all the changes have never been factored into wha people pay so here we are now, broke and more applying for SS every year.

No problem as long as everyone is willing to pay more which they are not.

Everyone wants something yet no on wants to pay.


#10

Lets start by actually cracking down.on the fraud especially by the medical profession and the scammers


#11

The problem resides in the payer: GOVERNMENT.

How often do you hear of an Insurance company fraud scandal. The have fraud department to minimize fraud.


#12

From the party that just added 1.5 trillion to the deficit. The make believe world of the lying right.


#13

How much did Obama add to the deficit?


#14

I’ll explain buying insurance across the state line, I live in Minnesota and they only OK health insurance companies that offer Insurance. No insurers that have a track record of lies and distortions , you know the right wing way of doing business. What do these destroyers want, competition by letting in any tom dick or harry insurance company in every state, even with the worst possible record. They will come back and tell us that it is each individuals duty to look into this themselves . Because of their hatred of our government . Profit through lies and unreadable sources of information.


#15

KIss off , You can’t justify your parties bullshit by what someone else does.


#16

You were the one that came in citing a particular figure. Obama added 9 trillion to the deficit. But I guess that doesn’t count right chief?


#17

How often to you hear about insurance companies turning down payment for medical bills. That’s the scam. The laugh that suggest that insurance companies fraud dept. is set up for the insured , shows just how blind ignorant these nut jobs are that believe that


#18

How often do you hear about the federal government forcing citizens to buy a product from private sector insurance companies? Oh that’s right. That’s called Obamacare. That’s the scam.


#19

Well then if that’s your mind block then the reality is comparing it to the amount that your party added to the deficit . Your bullshit comes up short then.


#20

All the time , just about every state forces people to buy auto insurance. to drive. More bullshit from the right.