American Cultural Revolution

[Deleted member 2897]

Of course the projected insolvency year moved up. Trump's tax cut reduced money going into the fund. So no, it doesn't surprise me that an administration and Congress that has shown the inability to balance a budget and apparently wants the system to collapse on itself has led to a more insolvent fund. The average "buffer" of years to keep the fund solvent from 2010 to 2016 was over 14 years. And now it's 9. Medicare has miles to go on improvement but if the administration doesn't want to improve it then it won't happen.

Please explain how Trumps tax cut reduced payroll taxes. The only difference I can see is millions more working and with higher wages, which means more payroll taxes.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Please explain how Trumps tax cut reduced payroll taxes. The only difference I can see is millions more working and with higher wages, which means more payroll taxes.

From the same study, along with increased costs here are some other factors that affected the earlier depletion date:
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/

• lower-than-expected revenues from payroll taxes in 2017 due to lowered wages and lower levels of projected GDP;
• lower revenue projections from taxation of Social Security benefits (which provided 8 percent of Part A revenues in 2017) as a result of the tax cut legislation enacted in December 2017;
• higher-than-expected spending for Part A benefits in 2017;
• higher Medicare Advantage payments due to higher risk scores for Medicare Advantage enrollees;
• higher spending projections due repeal of the ACA’s individual mandate, which is expected to increase the number of people without health insurance, which will result in an increase in Medicare’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments for uninsured patients; and
• higher spending projections due to repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which would have helped to control Medicare spending if the growth rate exceeded certain target levels.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

From the same study, along with increased costs here are some other factors that affected the earlier depletion date:
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/

• lower-than-expected revenues from payroll taxes in 2017 due to lowered wages and lower levels of projected GDP;
• lower revenue projections from taxation of Social Security benefits (which provided 8 percent of Part A revenues in 2017) as a result of the tax cut legislation enacted in December 2017;
• higher-than-expected spending for Part A benefits in 2017;
• higher Medicare Advantage payments due to higher risk scores for Medicare Advantage enrollees;
• higher spending projections due repeal of the ACA’s individual mandate, which is expected to increase the number of people without health insurance, which will result in an increase in Medicare’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments for uninsured patients; and
• higher spending projections due to repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which would have helped to control Medicare spending if the growth rate exceeded certain target levels.

I don’t doubt that the insolvency date moved up. I never disputed that. I disputed the fact that you said trumps tax cut lead to lower payroll tax revenues - that is demonstrably false. We have many many more people working than expected, which generates substantially more payroll tax revenue.

You’ll note that payroll revenue has actually increased. The only negative implication for the insolvency date was that their EXPECTED revenue will drop due to EXPECTED falling wages and EXPECTED falling GDP. None of which has actually happened. The opposite is actually happening. Their forecast of our economic activity as a result of the tax cuts was wildly incorrect before. And it continues to be.

 

[MWBATL]

From the same study, along with increased costs here are some other factors that affected the earlier depletion date:
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/

• lower-than-expected revenues from payroll taxes in 2017 due to lowered wages and lower levels of projected GDP;
• lower revenue projections from taxation of Social Security benefits (which provided 8 percent of Part A revenues in 2017) as a result of the tax cut legislation enacted in December 2017;
• higher-than-expected spending for Part A benefits in 2017;
• higher Medicare Advantage payments due to higher risk scores for Medicare Advantage enrollees;
• higher spending projections due repeal of the ACA’s individual mandate, which is expected to increase the number of people without health insurance, which will result in an increase in Medicare’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments for uninsured patients; and
• higher spending projections due to repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which would have helped to control Medicare spending if the growth rate exceeded certain target levels.

Near as I can tell, all of those items with one exception which seems quite minor and derivative....the main thrust seems to be that their projections under prior administrations were optimistic, to say the least.

And that is the point.....Democrats tend to make extremely optimistic projections when it comes to health care "solutions" as Obama did when he stated that the ACA would help save trillions.....I know some liberal friends who actually believed that garbage back then just as some actually believe that Medicare for All can be funded by "eliminating waste".....LOL (NB-Republicans can be similarly disingenuous with projections when it suits them....point is, don't believe EITHER group)

 

[Lotta Booze]

I don’t doubt that the insolvency date moved up. I never disputed that. I disputed the fact that you said trumps tax cut lead to lower payroll tax revenues - that is demonstrably false. We have many many more people working than expected, which generates substantially more payroll tax revenue.

You’ll note that payroll revenue has actually increased. The only negative implication for the insolvency date was that their EXPECTED revenue will drop due to EXPECTED falling wages and EXPECTED falling GDP. None of which has actually happened. The opposite is actually happening. Their forecast of our economic activity as a result of the tax cuts was wildly incorrect before. And it continues to be.

And you should note that I never said that it was specifically payroll taxes that were a factor. You were the only one who brought that up. You're fighting a strawman. I said his tax reform reduced their revenue which is EXACTLY what that study says. A reduction of 8% due to how SS benefits were taxed.

And yeah there is wage growth but I don't see it being as dramatic and hopeful as y'all are making it. Talk about Democrats being overly optimistic in their projections, I can't think of any group more optimism biased than Republicans talking about the wage growth that will happen if you just cut corporate taxes. Sure, average and median wages went up in 2017 and 2018, but not any more than it did in 2014 or 2015 without any tax cut at all.

I still stand by my point, of course Medicare is going to do worse if the administration doesn't give a $hit about it and wants it to implode on itself.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

And you should note that I never said that it was specifically payroll taxes that were a factor. You were the only one who brought that up. You're fighting a strawman. I said his tax reform reduced their revenue which is EXACTLY what that study says. A reduction of 8% due to how SS benefits were taxed.

And yeah there is wage growth but I don't see it being as dramatic and hopeful as y'all are making it. Talk about Democrats being overly optimistic in their projections, I can't think of any group more optimism biased than Republicans talking about the wage growth that will happen if you just cut corporate taxes. Sure, average and median wages went up in 2017 and 2018, but not any more than it did in 2014 or 2015 without any tax cut at all.

I still stand by my point, of course Medicare is going to do worse if the administration doesn't give a $hit about it and wants it to implode on itself.

LOL. And how is Medicare funded? Through payroll taxes (almost entirely) and high income surcharges. Both of which have increased substantially. Not just because incomes have increased some - but because there are now over 4 million more net new jobs and all those taxes.

You are the one who stated that Trump's tax cut negatively impacted Medicare's stability. Those were your words. I'm not sure you know what a strawman is.

The reality is that spending is out of control. Even Paul Krugman and other Liberal economists will tell you that.

 

[LibertyTurns]

It’s an overspending issue not an overtaxing issue. Of course the way to fix a deficit is to increase how much you’re spending. If you double how much you spend between now and 2024, you’ll look back on 2019 and realize we only spent half as much!

 

[Lotta Booze]

LOL. And how is Medicare funded? Through payroll taxes (almost entirely) and high income surcharges. Both of which have increased substantially. Not just because incomes have increased some - but because there are now over 4 million more net new jobs and all those taxes.

You are the one who stated that Trump's tax cut negatively impacted Medicare's stability. Those were your words. I'm not sure you know what a strawman is.

The reality is that spending is out of control. Even Paul Krugman and other Liberal economists will tell you that.

Ok. We'll break it down in bite sized chunks

I said, "Trump's tax cut reduced money going into the fund"
Citing a report that says: "lower revenue projections from taxation of Social Security benefits (which provided 8 percent of Part A revenues in 2017) as a result of the tax cut legislation enacted in December 2017"

And your reply was, "I disputed the fact that you said trumps tax cut lead to lower payroll tax revenues - that is demonstrably false."

We're either just talking past each other or you're fighting an argument I'm not making...a strawman. Either way not that important in the grand scheme.

And I'm still not clear on what the point of this little mini-thread is. At first the date of insolvency moving up is used as an example of what a disaster Medicare is and now it sounds like you're arguing that they are inaccurately projecting revenues and they should be higher based off of these "4 million more net new jobs and all those taxes". So the insolvency date should move out further based off of that? Is that what you're trying to say? So Medicare isn't as much of a disaster anymore?

You'll never hear me argue against managing costs running wild. I'm all for it. Which makes it even odder that they'd repeal the IPAB to manage costs if cost is what they are concerned about. But again, I don't think this administration cares about managing costs at all which is why they've increased the deficit. And as others have stated, they want it to implode on itself.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Ok. We'll break it down in bite sized chunks

I said, "Trump's tax cut reduced money going into the fund"
Citing a report that says: "lower revenue projections from taxation of Social Security benefits (which provided 8 percent of Part A revenues in 2017) as a result of the tax cut legislation enacted in December 2017"

And your reply was, "I disputed the fact that you said trumps tax cut lead to lower payroll tax revenues - that is demonstrably false."

We're either just talking past each other or you're fighting an argument I'm not making...a strawman. Either way not that important in the grand scheme.

And I'm still not clear on what the point of this little mini-thread is. At first the date of insolvency moving up is used as an example of what a disaster Medicare is and now it sounds like you're arguing that they are inaccurately projecting revenues and they should be higher based off of these "4 million more net new jobs and all those taxes". So the insolvency date should move out further based off of that? Is that what you're trying to say? So Medicare isn't as much of a disaster anymore?

You'll never hear me argue against managing costs running wild. I'm all for it. Which makes it even odder that they'd repeal the IPAB to manage costs if cost is what they are concerned about. But again, I don't think this administration cares about managing costs at all which is why they've increased the deficit. And as others have stated, they want it to implode on itself.

OK, lets break it further down.

When I argued with your assertion that Trump's tax cuts hurt Medicare's solvency, you did indeed respond with the assertion that tax changes hurt...after like 8 lines of spending arguments. So okay, throw out all those - that was the strawman. I am not disputing our spending is out of control.

Back to the tax revenue part - the reason I disagree with you even though you have a link you can cite, is that the link is talking projections. If you look at actual tax revenue, payroll tax revenue, etc., it is significantly higher. Like not even a small amount. There are not only higher wages for 150 million Americans on average, there are another 4 million working now, with all that tax revenue.

Then you go on to argue I'm disputing Medicare's solvency. No, I'm also not saying that. I'm saying its the worst run Federal Government program of all time. And the data says that. All I'm disputing is that Trump's tax rate cuts hurt the program. That is demonstrably false. Only someone's projections are worse. The actual revenue is higher. Remember, these same people said the stock market would crash when Trump was elected, that the trade wars would hurt the economy, that his tax rate cut would obliterate tax revenue. All these projections are false.

Actual payroll tax revenue this fiscal year (ending June 30th) is on pace to be around $3,5 Trillion dollars. It was $3.3 Trillion last year. It was $2.1 Trillion in 2010.

Tax revenue is not the problem. The problem is that we only charge 1/3rd the actual costs of the program. And every month thousands and thousands and thousands of more people sign up for it as they reach the enrollment age.

 

[Lotta Booze]

OK, lets break it further down.

When I argued with your assertion that Trump's tax cuts hurt Medicare's solvency, you did indeed respond with the assertion that tax changes hurt...after like 8 lines of spending arguments. So okay, throw out all those - that was the strawman. I am not disputing our spending is out of control.

Back to the tax revenue part - the reason I disagree with you even though you have a link you can cite, is that the link is talking projections. If you look at actual tax revenue, payroll tax revenue, etc., it is significantly higher. Like not even a small amount. There are not only higher wages for 150 million Americans on average, there are another 4 million working now, with all that tax revenue.

Then you go on to argue I'm disputing Medicare's solvency. No, I'm also not saying that. I'm saying its the worst run Federal Government program of all time. And the data says that. All I'm disputing is that Trump's tax rate cuts hurt the program. That is demonstrably false. Only someone's projections are worse. The actual revenue is higher. Remember, these same people said the stock market would crash when Trump was elected, that the trade wars would hurt the economy, that his tax rate cut would obliterate tax revenue. All these projections are false.

Actual payroll tax revenue this fiscal year (ending June 30th) is on pace to be around $3,5 Trillion dollars. It was $3.3 Trillion last year. It was $2.1 Trillion in 2010.

Tax revenue is not the problem. The problem is that we only charge 1/3rd the actual costs of the program. And every month thousands and thousands and thousands of more people sign up for it as they reach the enrollment age.

Well that is the tricky part about projections, the assumptions you make to get those projections. So when they say "lower revenues from payroll taxes" it isn't necessarily comparing it to the previous year but rather it's lower than what they projected previously. So yes, tax revenues are up year to year...but really so what? They've gone up every year since 2009. Numbers I'm looking at show 3.33 trillion for last year revenues and 3.44 trillion projected for this year. Cool. That's a little over 3% increase. And the "growth" from 2017 to 2018 was 0.3%. Average growth in tax revenue from 2017 to 2019 is 1.7%.

2010 to 2016 the average revenue growth year over year was 6.6%. Peaking with a growth of 13% in 2013. Conveniently that correlates with when the deficit was reduced by 38%. Imagine that.

So if someone is trying to project tax revenues and they are seeing growth around 6% and then during Trump's administration it is averaging 1.7%, yeah that could be considered "lower revenues".

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Well that is the tricky part about projections, the assumptions you make to get those projections. So when they say "lower revenues from payroll taxes" it isn't necessarily comparing it to the previous year but rather it's lower than what they projected previously. So yes, tax revenues are up year to year...but really so what? They've gone up every year since 2009. Numbers I'm looking at show 3.33 trillion for last year revenues and 3.44 trillion projected for this year. Cool. That's a little over 3% increase. And the "growth" from 2017 to 2018 was 0.3%. Average growth in tax revenue from 2017 to 2019 is 1.7%.

2010 to 2016 the average revenue growth year over year was 6.6%. Peaking with a growth of 13% in 2013. Conveniently that correlates with when the deficit was reduced by 38%. Imagine that.

So if someone is trying to project tax revenues and they are seeing growth around 6% and then during Trump's administration it is averaging 1.7%, yeah that could be considered "lower revenues".

But that's not what is happening. In either case. And its also not the point.

First, a correction of the history. In the 8 years Obama was President, payroll taxes increased from $2.57T to $3.25T. That's a 3.4% annual increase, not 6%.

Second, the point you made was not that payroll taxes were decreasing or increasing and that's it. Your assertion was that payroll taxes were decreasing because of Trumps tax rate cuts. That's not happening - they aren't decreasing, and there is no evidence the tax rate cuts have done anything other than help the cause.

Furthermore, this fiscal year is almost done (June 30th), so that $3.5T estimate is all but locked in. Next year's projection is $3.65T. If payroll taxes grow from $3.27T to $3.65T in 4 years, that's...wait for it...wait for it...a 3.8% growth year over year over 4 years. Higher than during Obama's tenure. I don't see any evidence payroll taxes are decreasing, and I don't see any evidence the growth of those payroll taxes have been weakened.

 

[Lotta Booze]

But that's not what is happening. In either case. And its also not the point.

First, a correction of the history. In the 8 years Obama was President, payroll taxes increased from $2.57T to $3.25T. That's a 3.4% annual increase, not 6%.

Second, the point you made was not that payroll taxes were decreasing or increasing and that's it. Your assertion was that payroll taxes were decreasing because of Trumps tax rate cuts. That's not happening - they aren't decreasing, and there is no evidence the tax rate cuts have done anything other than help the cause.

Furthermore, this fiscal year is almost done (June 30th), so that $3.5T estimate is all but locked in. Next year's projection is $3.65T. If payroll taxes grow from $3.27T to $3.65T in 4 years, that's...wait for it...wait for it...a 3.8% growth year over year over 4 years. Higher than during Obama's tenure. I don't see any evidence payroll taxes are decreasing, and I don't see any evidence the growth of those payroll taxes have been weakened.

First, a correction to your correction. My math was from 2010 to 2016. I was trying to stay away from the 08-09 mess because it's a bit of an anomaly. And you're getting the 2.52T number from 2008, when Obama wasn't President. If you do go from 2009 the growth rate year over year to 2016 is 6.96%. And 2017 to 2019 is still a little over 1% year over year. And if you do include the 2020 projection and it goes from 3.27 to 3.65 in 4 years that's...wait for it...wait for it...a whopping 2.4% growth year over year for 4 years. Not anywhere near 6%

Second, I never said payroll taxes were decreasing.

Furthermore, the fiscal year for the government is over Sept 30th chief.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Have to admit you guys gave me a run for my money finding the data here. If you go to the two most recent SSA’s Trustees report for 2019 and 2018 and compare the data you get the following:

2017 Revenue OASI and DI: $825B, $171B
2018 Revenue OASI and DI: $831B, $172B

As was propositioned by @bwelbo there was actual growth in revenue in 2018 despite some businesses pulling revenue forward into 2017 to avoid the tax man. There’s no place to hide in 2019. Tax receipts for both will resume their healthy upward trend as more people work.

Sorry, cannot post the link but go to SSA Trustee Report. Note: formats are not identical because of regulatory reforms having been made but the categories and what’s in them are the same. The new format is a lot easier to digest.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

First, a correction to your correction. My math was from 2010 to 2016. I was trying to stay away from the 08-09 mess because it's a bit of an anomaly. And you're getting the 2.52T number from 2008, when Obama wasn't President. If you do go from 2009 the growth rate year over year to 2016 is 6.96%. And 2017 to 2019 is still a little over 1% year over year. And if you do include the 2020 projection and it goes from 3.27 to 3.65 in 4 years that's...wait for it...wait for it...a whopping 2.4% growth year over year for 4 years. Not anywhere near 6%

Second, I never said payroll taxes were decreasing.

Furthermore, the fiscal year for the government is over Sept 30th chief.

Not sure where I came up with June 3oth. LOL.

Anyway. $2.52 is the STARTING POINT. That's not his data. That's the year I picked from which to measure him. FY2008 ends on September 30th 2008. I. I mean, its all kind of arbitrary because Presidents don't start on the fiscal year, they start in between them.

I'm not sure how you calculated 2.4%. If I pick the fiscal year that ends 6 months after inauguration per your recommendation, that's the FY ending 2017 for Trump. 3.32T was payroll taxes that year. 3.3% compounded annually gets you to next year's 3.65T estimate.

The main thing of course is that if we get out of this minutia, we'll see that (a) payroll tax revenue is not decreasing and (b) payroll tax revenue growth is not decreasing. The rate of change of growth is increasing.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Not sure where I came up with June 3oth. LOL.

Anyway. $2.52 is the STARTING POINT. That's not his data. That's the year I picked from which to measure him. FY2008 ends on September 30th 2008. I. I mean, its all kind of arbitrary because Presidents don't start on the fiscal year, they start in between them.

I'm not sure how you calculated 2.4%. If I pick the fiscal year that ends 6 months after inauguration per your recommendation, that's the FY ending 2017 for Trump. 3.32T was payroll taxes that year. 3.3% compounded annually gets you to next year's 3.65T estimate.

The main thing of course is that if we get out of this minutia, we'll see that (a) payroll tax revenue is not decreasing and (b) payroll tax revenue growth is not decreasing. The rate of change of growth is increasing.

I'm admittedly being lazy and using online calculators to come up with the 2.4% (3.32T in 2017 and 3.64 projected for 2020 over 4 years) but still not seeing how you get to 3.3%. But I am being consistent when comparing them.
https://www.miniwebtool.com/percent...r/?present_value=3.32&future_value=3.64&num=4
https://investinganswers.com/calculators/return/compound-annual-growth-rate-cagr-calculator-1262

If you do include 2008 as the starting point then yes, Obama's numbers over 9 years would be about 3.3%. So, in that scenario, Trump's % growth in his first term is still less than (or maybe comparable to) Obama's entire term with the huge caveat that Obama's data includes the worst recession the country has seen since the Great Depression. And Trump's data is from one of the best economies we've had in decades.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm admittedly being lazy and using online calculators to come up with the 2.4% (3.32T in 2017 and 3.64 projected for 2020 over 4 years) but still not seeing how you get to 3.3%. But I am being consistent when comparing them.
https://www.miniwebtool.com/percent...r/?present_value=3.32&future_value=3.64&num=4
https://investinganswers.com/calculators/return/compound-annual-growth-rate-cagr-calculator-1262

If you do include 2008 as the starting point then yes, Obama's numbers over 9 years would be about 3.3%. So, in that scenario, Trump's % growth in his first term is still less than (or maybe comparable to) Obama's entire term with the huge caveat that Obama's data includes the worst recession the country has seen since the Great Depression. And Trump's data is from one of the best economies we've had in decades.

Okay so then it looks like the conclusion is there is no discernible difference in the growth of payroll tax and income tax revenue. I will totally give to you a lot of the time frames we can choose to pick are arbitrary and make for different conclusions. But what I don’t see no matter what is a decrease in revenue or a flattening even.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The Royal Baby was just born. Of course they eschewed the glorious national health system everyone loves and paid to go to a private hospital LOL.

 

[Lotta Booze]

The Royal Baby was just born. Of course they eschewed the glorious national health system everyone loves and paid to go to a private hospital LOL.

What a great point. Proving that despite what some may say having a public option does not eliminate the market of choice for healthcare.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

What a great point. Proving that despite what some may say having a public option does not eliminate the market of choice for healthcare.

Yep, give the masses ****ty *** healthcare, and let the rich people get the good stuff. #Populism.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Yep, give the masses ****ty *** healthcare, and let the rich people get the good stuff. #Populism.

Is that how you feel about public education too?

And is that so different from what we currently have? Except the poor get even worse treatment