Ex-IRS whistleblower says middle class targeted under inflation bill

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ddle-class-targeted-under-inflation-bill/amp/

And some folks claim the middle class will not be targeted! Looks like these folks are WRONG as usual.

The Inflation Inflation Act has nothing to do with improving the lives of the American people. It is just another money grab from the democrats.

How much poorer do folks need to get before the democrats are satisfied?

 

I would like one liberal on this board give a single reason that this bill is good for the working or middle class. It is obviously good for expanding deep state power. It is obviously good for megacorporations in the renewable energy grift. It is obviously wealth transfer from the middle class via higher inflation and higher taxes. It will obviously prolong and worsen the recession. None of this is debatable.

When the horror of this hits the middle class in a year, the liberals on this board will proclaim that nobody could have predicted the results. They will then ask how we can stop inflation and recession. They will pretend that wantonly printing money and raising taxes does not affect the economy. When evidence does not matter, your mind can never be changed.

 

We all know democrats are going after the middle class.

 

One guys monetized opine turned into an article to feed a partisan conspiracy theory and then posted here as news. Oh yeah and it from the far RW Trumpers.

 

The rich are lucky to have people like you around to spread their propaganda.

 

Amen!

 

For starters, how will you define "good" without involving political ideologies?

Second, it is best you know what exactly is in the Deficit Reduction Act. This means reading the Act itself or the summary as in this link. To summarize, it includes:

• Negotiations of certain drug prices
• Drug Price Inflation Cap
• Expansion of ACA subsidies for three years
• Medicare Part D redesign, LIS subsidies, vaccine coverage
• IRS enforcement
• 15% Alt min Tax for Corporations
• closure of carried interest loophole.
• Clean energy tax credits, programs, forestry, conservation, and rural development.

It has codified the reduction in insulin prices that Trump made via executive order.

So, take your pick

 

In the drive toward totalitarian all powerful centralized government the small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs, and the middle class are the first ones that have to go. Before the proletariat, under the leadership and direction of the elite clerisy and authoritarians, can take over, the bourgeoisie has to go.

 

1. Only 10 drugs and only for Medicare Part D private insurance. Insurance companies and others already negotiate prices why should I believe the government can do a better job? I take nine prescriptions and between my insurance and GoodRx I only pay between $300 - $400 a year. I don't expect some huge deficit reduction here. How does this reduce inflation and lower the deficit?

2. The new drug reduction act and full of loopholes. How does this reduce inflation and lower the deficit?

3.Again??? How does that reduce inflation and lower the deficit? Those were supposed to end back under Obama his plan was so great and was going to save everyone sonmuch money.

4. Repetitious see above. I don't pay for vaccines now. How does this reduce inflation and lower the deficit?

5. On the backs of small business and the middle class.

6. Have YOU read your own cite? Have you read all the loopholes? And depreciation and loss careover the drivers as to why a few companies report a gross profit but pay no income tax are still there from what I read. And of course they should be. They are still used as far as I can tell reading it.

7. Strawman diversion.

8. More spending higher inflation and deficits from pet projects.

So why did theybchange the name of the bill?

 

LOL: Even 52% of Democrats don’t believe ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ will actually reduce inflation, poll finds.

The double the IRS and Carbon Cult Slush Fund bill

​

Only 1/4 are dumb enough to buy their lying swill.

 

Of course they are wrong. Those who cannot afford good accountants and lawyers will be affected the most.

 

Hasn’t that always been the case though?

 

Yes. This is an expansion of what already exists. The poor and middle are disproportionately affected.

 

They cannot attack the 1% because that is where they get their donations. Leaves the obvious choice of middle class. Democrats have been stabbing the American people in the back for decades.

 

Ok so let's talk about this shall we.

If Medicare negotiates a price of a drug, where does the company offset that lower price. Do you think they'll just eat the loss or raise prices?
ACA just extending benefits for lower income individuals.
IRS enforcement on billionaires, Do you really think 87k new agents are needed to enforce the 927 billionaires we have?
15% min corp tax, does it have any exceptions? Do you think mom and pops and big corps are going to eat that 15% or pass it on to the consumer. You know increase prices.
Clean energy tax credits, we already see Car MFGs are already raiding the cost of EVs. In another thread the credit comes nowhere close to the cost of solar, much less the savings so that's going no where unless a state makes you replace your roof with solar, which roofing costs sky rocket.
Insulin was already fixed via Trump EO.

I'm serious, things don't just go down because of a f'ing bill. The name is a play to the disaster inflation of the Biden regime, the bill is going to increase overall cost to consumers.

 

LOL, for starters, inflation is not based on government spending or fiat money. That is just a load of horsepucky perpetuated by conservatives.

1. It's not 10 drugs. Although insurance companies have the capability to negotiate drug prices, insurance companies rely on the plan allowance scheme they use to determine what you ultimately pay. Because the plan allowance is proprietary and will change from one group to the next within the same insurance company and plan, the Medicare/Medicaid drug negotiations With the federal government negotiating drug prices for Medicare/Medicaid, the economies of scale will come into full force, which would help with drug prices. Furthermore, the bill offers discounts to Medicare/Medicaid recipients whether they have Part D or not. The types of drugs include: single-source brand name drugs or biologics without approved generics or biosimilars (not including authorized generics) will be eligible for negotiation, small molecule drugs will not be subject to negotiation unless they have been approved for at least nine years, and biological products will not be subject to negotiation unless they have been licensed for at least 13 years. These drugs are in the thousands, not 10 as you defined it. Eventually, there will be websites available to help show the cost once the plan is implemented. Since drup prices are part of the component of an aging US population for the calculation of inflation, the negotiations will help reduce pressure on inflation, at least with prescription drug prices are concerned.
2. Drug Reduction Act has what loopholes? If you are going to make grandiose statements like that, at least give an example or explain a little further. Otherwise, to me, you are just throwing mud onto the wall to see what sticks. The Drug Reduction Act Basically, the way the Drug Reduction Act works is that if the pharmaceutical company increases prices higher than inflation, like the Epi-Pen manufacturer for asthma increased their prices initially by 5000% in 2015, it will provide a maximum $2000 out of pocket expenses for Medicare recipients in Part D starting in 2025. So, if you go past the out-of-pocket expenses, you no longer have to pay copays or your portion of the plan allowance. It also provides credits for certain types of drugs, ranging from 25% to 35% if the company decides to increase the price beyond what the inflation measure says. This again puts downward pressure in the long run on inflation, specifically in the prescription drug areas.
3. Expansion of ACA allows people who are not privileged to be working for a firm that offers group health insurance or the state does not have a reasonable cost option pool based on their health condition. Thus, by providing subsidies to the ACA, the ACA would be more enticing to individuals seeking that type of plan. Or in other words, it is cheaper and allows access to health care to certain groups of people. The more people have access to a physician, the less costly it is in the long run.
4. The payment of vaccines, especially Covid vaccines, would have ended in 2022 or 2023. Can't remember. This bill allows the cost for Covid and other preventative vaccines, especially to high-risk groups. And I am not going to argue in this thread about the validity of Covid or any other vaccines. That is a different argument altogether. Nor is the bill advocating mandatory requirements for the vaccine.
5. Not with this conspiracy theory. I have explained, that the net amount of personnel increase in a ten-year time frame is 20000 or so. Not all will be Revenue Agents. Most will be in other fields. Any organization this size has a multitude of different jobs that make the organization work. A lot of them are support personnel and some are Revenue Agents, TCOs, and Revenue Officers. This is just typical conservative fearmongering by people who have no idea what the hell they are saying.
6. Yes, I have read it, but I you are just regurgitating what you heard on the conservative radio or TV. For starters, the SOI Data from the IRS disagrees with you. The data is from 2019, the last tax year which tax returns were thoroughly analyzed. Second, in 2020, because of Covid and all that, I think many companies did have the opportunity to claim NOL carrybacks or carryovers. Under 26 USC 172, a timely filed election must be made for a carry forward to be applied for up to 20 years. Most businesses, especially small businesses, do not utilize this tax code very often. They can't afford it year after year after year, even if they tried. Second, depreciation is a noncash expense on the return, generally, unless it is a 179 deduction. The 179 deductions is limited to the taxable income of the business, excluding depreciation. For most depreciation, it is under MACRS using GDS or ADS, depending on the property purchased. But again, this generally does not have anything to do with enforcement unless the taxpayer is using the wrong method for depreciation for the type of property they purchased.
7. What strawman, you have to be more specific. None of us on this board are mindreaders Blues.
8. The CBO calculated that the net benefit over 10 years would be a deficit reduction of $155 billion. CBO also sent a letter to Sen Graham on the economic effects of the bill. It states, "In the calendar year 2022, enacting the bill would have a negligible effect on inflation, in CBO’s assessment. In the calendar year 2023, inflation would probably be between 0.1 percentage point lower and 0.1 percentage point higher under the bill than it would be under current law, CBO estimates." It has negligible effects in the short term. The reason for this is how our economy works and this bill spans over a decade. The letter also states that the CBO has not yet calculated the results on inflation beyond 2024 and it cannot. So, this is not surprising in the short run. But the bill does reduce the deficit by some $155 billion over 10 years, assuming everything else is equal.

I have no idea why they changed the name, that is not in my or anyone else's purview on this forum or anywhere else.

Next, do a little proofreading on your post, you had way too many grammatical and spelling errors to count.

 

And some folks still fall for it. How many of these Democrat political hacks, that lie, need to get elected and do nothing will it take before the low info voters see what they are doing?

Perhaps we should ask Mr Owl.....


.....he is an expert on SUCKERS!

 

With insurance companies, it really depends on the type of plan you have and whether it is individual through a pool in your state, ACA, or a group plan through the employer. These plans do not compete with Medicare/Medicaid plans. Now, insurance companies that offer health insurance as an addition to Medicare Part A or B, such as Part C, D, E, F or G, may need to compete with Medicare in terms of drug prices. We needed to get that out of the way first. In the marketplace, the insurance company that competes with Medicare may discontinue certain insurance plans because it is not too efficient in doing so. This happens all the time in the marketplace and is part of capitalism doctrine. Even without the bill, some of these companies may be deciding to do so in the near future, but now with the bill, may make the decision sooner rather than later. Second, the only way this will affect private insurance companies is that they may become more aggressive with their negotiations with Medicare being a price leader in this case, or they may become more selective in their research to improve certain drugs. What I mean by this is that a pharmaceutical company might have 6 or more research projects going on with prescription X that has been on the shelf for a decade now and its monopoly is about to run out under the law. So, instead of 6 projects, they may do three, using the same expense, and maybe quicker or longer to get the new medicine out. To put your biggest fear aside, what this is not doing is "socializing" the health care industry.

For the corporate alt min tax, or BMT, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, or PwC, has some basic info. A corporation, other than an S corp, RIC, or REIT, is an applicable corporation that must meet the AFSI test. That test includes two criteria, $1 billion and $100 million. In other words, this will affect the large corporations and not small businesses at all. It also includes in that test if the corporation is owned by a foreign parent and must include in the calculation the all foreign members of the group. If the US company owns foreign subsidiaries, that too applies. There are exceptions to this as the link describes, but overall, if the corporation is required to file, it will file and pay a minimum 15% tax.

Right now, prices of cars, used, new, EVs etc, are not in equilibrium because of the supply chain disruptions in place. However, green energy is much more than this. Yes, it is creating an incentive to purchase an EV for some consumers, but not all, and it will make car fuel efficiency even better in the long run, but more importantly, the jobs that this will create range from installing solar panels onto a home or business to the conservation of water and other natural resources, and in the long run, help lower CO2 emissions to respectable levels.

Except it was codified and made the price much, much more permanent than the EO. EO 13937 was extremely limited to only those health centers that received certain grants from HHS. This would make it permanent and apply to anyone, no matter which type of insurance they have, a maximum copay of $35.

 

Could anyone really be stupid enough to believe that spending more money would help reduce inflation?

The answer is apparently yes.

This whole "inflation reduction" Act was just another gimmick, combined with an excuse to spend more money on pet progressive projects.

Unfortunately many progressives lie to themselves and want to believe those lies, even when the hint is revealed to them that they should know better.

 

Many progressives know better. They just believe in the end their dreams will come true. This is why they are willing to go along.

They do not know that it is a big club and they are not in it.

 

If there are supply chain issues, wouldn't improving the infrastructure that the supply chain relies on help?

Could you do this without spending money?

 

The infrastructure is a minuscule part of the supply chain problem. Trucks, trains, and plains are getting from here to there with virtually no difficulty. (Though CA banning 40,000 or so truck drivers won't help.) The biggest factor in the problem is manufacturing and production, in large part because of the lack of raw materials which too is a production problem, not an infrastructure problem. "Infrastructure" is just a popular accepted word which is why congress and presidents use it whenever they can -- a little like "inflation" of late.

 

I was just using that as one example of things the government spends money on that could help reduce inflation.

The internet is also infrastructure, and it wouldn't exist either if the government hadn't spent money. Private sector would have never created it on it's own because it isn't profitable until the architecture is set up, which was done by the government. Yet, it has lead to trillions of dollars worth of wealth creation.

it takes money to make money as they say.

 

Will you please practice some brevity and use of paragraphs I do not him the time or gumption to try and weed through another post with a bunch unneccssary garbage to try and find what point you are making or refuting.

 

Hahaha! There we go with that "you didn't build that" Obama crap.