Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 - Climate Change, ACA Subsidies, Medicare, Corp Tax, Deficit Reduction - Manchin Schumer

[Danraft]

Great news. House should pass this quickly

[Gregg]

For operations in DC it would be more likely the 699th would deploy directly from the Imperial Illuminati Air Force's Armored Fortress in Gettysburg Pennsylvania, making use of the convenient helipad at General Eisenhower's old home just across the battlefield and a scant 86 miles from Capitol Hill.

You fail to consider that it is in fact extended Shark Week which along with "Empty Peanut Butter Jar night" is a VERY BIG thing around the Regimental Day Room.



While reliable witnesses have seen elements of the famed Flying Weiner Dogs encamp near DC in the Keef Richards Suite in an undisclosed Arlington Hotel I can't remember any time we've seen them overnight inside the District.

Allegedly...

[bob]

the corridor to the suite has closed caption security cameras. It is also the only suite in Washington, D.C. that is equipped with bullet-resistant windows, according

Closed CIRCUIT security cameras maybe?

For $18k/night, I want cameras that can read my guests' lips and then generate a transcript.

[Gregg]

I want it fully staffed with professional entertainment.

[pjhimself]

https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking- ... ct-of-2022

[Foggy]

Crapo for the whine!

[humblescribe]

From personal experience:

Schedule C (profit from a sole proprietor) and Schedule E (income from rents and royalties) are almost exclusively used by the lower-income individuals. Those with larger businesses either incorporate, use a general or limited partnership, or are LLCs with multiple owners. (In California, professionals use LLPs [limited liability partnerships] instead.) Similarly, mom-and-pop rentals will use a Schedule E. Larger rental properties, whether commercial or residential will again be in another entity like a partnership or LLC.

Generally, the smaller the business, the sloppier the record keeping. Many smaller businesses commingle business receipts and disbursements with their wage or other incomes. In addition, many people are money grabbers (my term of art, not recognized throughout the industry.) Money grabbers spend money from accounts that have the highest balance, or deposit funds in accounts with the lowest balances, and they worry about the accounting later--sometimes much later. Larger businesses, especially those with unrelated partners or investors, usually keep pretty good records and make darn sure that money grabbing doesn't go on.

So, it is only sensible that enforcement focus on those areas where record keeping might be an issue or where business receipts and disbursements might wind up in the wrong account and be under reported on the tax forms. Ever want to get a better price from a small businessperson? Ask how much the cost is if you pay in cash!

Here is some tax math: A person has a side gig that nets $18,000. That person will have to pay over $2,500 in self-employment tax (that is the equivalent to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that are withheld from pay. However wage earners only pay half because the employer pays the other half. Self-employeds have to pony up both halves.) This is on top of the additional income taxes that will be due on the $18,000 profit, less half the SE tax ($1,250), or $16,750. If the taxpayer is in the 22% tax bracket, that is another $3,700 in income taxes. You can see that the actual net profit from an $18,000 business profit plummets to under $12,000. A pretty steep effective tax rate of over 33% on a rather small income. I am sure some might call it confiscatory.

So, yes, Senator, the IRS will focus on the smaller guy. That is where the Service can get a better bang for their buck and get cases closed out the quickest. And cases closed is how the IRS determines its efficacy.

[jcolvin2]

So, yes, Senator, the IRS will focus on the smaller guy. That is where the Service can get a better bang for their buck and get cases closed out the quickest. And cases closed is how the IRS determines its efficacy.

I think the expense of small taxpayer audits that focus on record keeping issues often exceeds the potential adjustment. If the IRS is smart, it will focus more of any additional funding on larger taxpayers with more complicated transactions. For example, as of a few years ago, financial transaction specialists generate about $50k per hour devoted to reviewing taxpayer transactions.

[humblescribe]

So, yes, Senator, the IRS will focus on the smaller guy. That is where the Service can get a better bang for their buck and get cases closed out the quickest. And cases closed is how the IRS determines its efficacy.

I think the expense of small taxpayer audits that focus on record keeping issues often exceeds the potential adjustment. If the IRS is smart, it will focus more of any additional funding on larger taxpayers with more complicated transactions. For example, as of a few years ago, financial transaction specialists generate about $50k per hour devoted to reviewing taxpayer transactions.

I do not disagree. But tax examiners are trained for the low-end stuff. The ones that I have encountered have not come from serious financial fields of study or employment. They are trained to do tracing of cash receipts to tax forms and schedules and to evaluate reasonableness of expenditure versus income. Many are just not very good. The computer kicks out the items to be audited or confirmed. While these examiners won't generate 50K/hour, they easily could assess $4-$5K per day. Of course, then it is off to collections which is a whole 'nother ball game. Then offers-in-compromise for the indigent could also whittle those assessments down by 50% or more.

Tax examiners don't handle the sorts of financial transactions to which you refer. These are going to be seasoned CPAs with a lawyer or two in the mix and perhaps even a Special Agent if things start going hinky.

The chances of one of these larger financial transaction audits going to appeals then Tax Court and beyond are significantly higher than the Uber driver who understated his income by $15,000. The former is primarily focused on application of the statutes, regulations, and case law and is subject to argument and interpretation. The latter is primarily an oops. I would suspect that the costs of litigating many of these financial transactions brings the 50K/hour down significantly.

I mean, how much has tfg ponied up from his interminable audit that started 12 or so years ago? I reckon much has to do with the 469 passive/active rules and if he has ginned up his participation in his scores of LLCs and other entities to take advantage of offsetting passive gains with passive losses and active losses with active gains that miraculously change from year-to-year. And maybe even some questionable foreign tax credits that he has utilized. Or AMT that was refundable in 2010 and 2011 if I remember correctly.

[Gregg]

I for one hope they just finish one very special audit they have been doing since at least 2015 and when they do they take all the moneys.

[Foggy]

If'n they lock in the ACA subsidies for three years, we're set, because after that we'll be ready to retire.

When I was hospitalized with Guillain-Barré in 2011, we had to give up the flower shop and start over. Which we did.

And I think it was really good for our children to see us fall off the cliff, get up, brush ourselves off, and start climbing again. I suspect they will see more changes in their lives than I've seen in mine, and they're ready to handle whatever comes down the pike. .

[jemcanada2]

For operations in DC it would be more likely the 699th would deploy directly from the Imperial Illuminati Air Force's Armored Fortress in Gettysburg Pennsylvania, making use of the convenient helipad at General Eisenhower's old home just across the battlefield and a scant 86 miles from Capitol Hill.

You fail to consider that it is in fact extended Shark Week which along with "Empty Peanut Butter Jar night" is a VERY BIG thing around the Regimental Day Room.



While reliable witnesses have seen elements of the famed Flying Weiner Dogs encamp near DC in the Keef Richards Suite in an undisclosed Arlington Hotel I can't remember any time we've seen them overnight inside the District.

Allegedly...

I can’t look!

He’s ruthlessly gloating over the body of one of his poor victims. Oh, the humanity!

p.s. Biscuit

[pipistrelle]

I can’t look!

He’s ruthlessly gloating over the body of one of his poor victims. Oh, the humanity!

p.s. Biscuit

She’s staring out into space, thinking, "Doberman! I said Doberman!"

[keith]

Either these Weiner Dogs are being cruelly forced to wear bad Christmas sweaters in some tawdry prison camp in the stultifying heat of a northern summer or they are really located in the chilly ski resorts of Australia or New Zealand.

Which is it you monsters?

[pipistrelle]

Either these Weiner Dogs are being cruelly forced to wear bad Christmas sweaters in some tawdry prison camp in the stultifying heat of a northern summer or they are really located in the chilly ski resorts of Australia or New Zealand.

Which is it you monsters?

That's a shark sweater!

[Gregg]

Either these Weiner Dogs are being cruelly forced to wear bad Christmas sweaters in some tawdry prison camp in the stultifying heat of a northern summer or they are really located in the chilly ski resorts of Australia or New Zealand.

Which is it you monsters?

That's a shark sweater!

I can assure you they are the latest active wear spandex.


And Biscuit and Root Beer are both "she/her" pronouns although technically they are both "it"

[Foggy]

Off Topic

Huh. When I was a boy, we didn't need no stinkin' pronouns. All my nouns were amateurs back then, and didn't adopt a lot of airs beyond their station.

[pjhimself]

Crapo for the whine!

Proving how you’ve read the post and provided cogent observations.
As seems typical for some here.

(Whine sometimes but prefer wine.)

[sugar magnolia]

Crapo for the whine!

Proving how you’ve read the post and provided cogent observations.
As seems typical for some here.

(Whine sometimes but prefer wine.)

Do you come here for anything but making snotty comments and posting bird videos? I notice you didn't make any observations, cogent or otherwise. Just dropped a link and wandered off.

[Luke]

ruthlessly gloating over the body of one of her poor victims.

Wow, seeing the Spandex comment is remarkable coming from the 699th -- Foggy must have pulled some serious strings to get TWO comments in a week. That ferocious show of force is why the 699th is rarely discussed publicly. Images like that of Lt Biscuit above are enough to shut down even the most gruesome MAGAt. Sorry to see that victim of Lt Biscuit, but these folks won't learn.

Meanwhile, here's what is going to help people in the real world:

Inflation Reduction Act could be "game-changing" for millions of U.S. seniors
BY IRINA IVANOVA AUGUST 9, 2022 / 2:35 PM / MONEYWATCH

The Inflation Reduction Act represents the most important effort in decades to reform how drug prices are set in the U.S., experts say. "This is going to be game-changing," Rena Conti, an associate professor at Boston University's Questrom School of Business who studies drug pricing, said of the bill, which passed in the Senate on Sunday and which House lawmakers could vote on as early as Friday.

$2,000 limit on out-of-pocket costs
The biggest change for seniors on Medicare would be to limit on how much they spend out-of-pocket on medication and on vaccines. Vaccines would be free starting next year. Starting in 2025, out-of-pocket spending on drugs would be limited to $2,000 per year. In 2024, costs would be capped at Medicare's catastrophic drug coverage limit, which this year is $7,050. That's good news for seniors that take expensive drugs. "Today's policy basically has unlimited out-of-pocket spending, and that is really bad for people who need expensive drugs," said Stacie Dusetzina, associate professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. "For anyone who needs drugs to treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis — some of them have bills over $10,000 a year." In 2019, 1.5 million seniors spent more than $2,000 on prescriptions, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But the true number may be higher, said Dusetzina, pointing to research showing that 30% of Medicare beneficiaries who face high prices for cancer treatments don't fill their prescriptions. Tricia Neuman, director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, noted that half of Medicare recipients live on $30,000 a year or less. "This is a significant savings for people on relatively modest incomes," she said.

Subsidies for low-income seniors
The bill makes more seniors eligible for low-income subsidies intended to pay for Medicare prescription drugs. Starting in 2024, the income limit to be eligible for Medicare's Low Income Subsidy rises to 150% of the federal poverty level, from today's limit of 135%. (Using today's income levels, that means a single person could make up to $19,200 to qualify.) As a result, about 400,000 more Medicare beneficiaries would get subsidies under the new program, according to KFF research.

Insulin price cap
The Inflation Reduction Act caps how much seniors must spend on insulin to $35 a month — a boon for the more than 3 million older Americans who use insulin to control their diabetes. A provision that would have imposed that cap on all patients was stripped from the bill at the last minute, despite bipartisan support. Since 2007, the number of Medicare beneficiaries using insulin has doubled, but the amount Medicare spends on insulin has increased twice as fast, KFF research has shown. One in four diabetes patients has skimped on insulin because of its cost.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inflation- ... s-explain/

[pjhimself]

Crapo for the whine!

Proving how you’ve read the post and provided cogent observations.
As seems typical for some here.

(Whine sometimes but prefer wine.)

Do you come here for anything but making snotty comments and posting bird videos? I notice you didn't make any observations, cogent or otherwise. Just dropped a link and wandered off.

Read the link please, it’s about what is included in the legislation.
My observations aren’t as important as what’s in the legislation.
Read it, agree it’s good stuff or not but it’s all all a load of bull, yet we accept it. And vote for these fools.

And, oh by the way, both parties have been doing this BS for years.

[quote] Democrats claim the latest version of their tax-and-spend bill, the mislabeled “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” will ensure the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay their “fair share” by closing tax loopholes and boosting IRS funding, all without raising taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 per year.  However, analyses from nonpartisan experts show the legislation would raise taxes on low- and middle-income Americans during a period of declining GDP and high inflation; raise taxes on manufacturers, exacerbating supply-chain disruptions, and costing U.S. jobs and investment; and do little to nothing to lower inflation.“

The more this bill is analyzed by impartial experts, the more we can see Democrats are trying to sell the American people a bill of goods,” said U.S. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo.  “Non-partisan analysts are confirming this bill raises taxes on the middle class, raises taxes on manufacturers, and produces no meaningful deficit reduction when gimmicks are removed and the full cost is accounted for.” 

Access this document here.

IRS FUNDING

MYTH: Increasing IRS funding by $80 billion will provide the agency with the resources it needs to go after wealthy tax cheats and corporations who don’t pay their fair share in taxes, generating more than $124 billion in additional revenue to go toward deficit reduction.

FACT: According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the brunt of any new revenue from hiring an army of IRS auditors will overwhelming hit low- and middle-income earners, people already struggling with high gas prices and 9.1 percent inflation.  CBO scores the $80 billion for mandatory IRS funding as spending only, and gives phantom credit for potential enforcement revenue that might be generated in “future baselines.”

Background:

IRS funding breakdown—$80 billion in mandatory appropriations to the IRS:

$45.6 billion for enforcement purposes
$25.3 billion for operations support
$4.8 billion for business systems modernization
$3.2 billion for taxpayer services
How will the $45.6 billion for enforcement purposes be used to address the noncompliance tax gap?

According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, misreported trade or business activities (Schedule C items) or other income-producing activities (Schedule E items) make up a very significant portion of the overall noncompliance “tax gap.”

IRS data reproduced in the table below show that Schedule C or E tax enforcement assessments predominantly hit taxpayers who have low (or very low) Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), and nothing in the proposal would change that fact.

Based upon these data, out of all the revenue projected to be raised from underreported income:

40-57 percent could come from taxpayers making $50,000 or less;
65-78 percent from those making less than $100,000; and,
78-90 percent from those making less than $200,000.
Only around 4-9 percent could come from those making $500,000 or more.
 

BOOK MINIMUM TAX

MYTH: The book minimum tax (BMT) does not raise taxes; it closes loopholes by making large companies pay at least a 15 percent minimum tax.

FACT: The BMT is a $313 billion tax increase, with half of the increase falling on manufacturers, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.  Despite proponents’ claims, the book minimum tax does not close tax loopholes.  The BMT is calculated based on financial statement (“book”) income, which is a different set of rules established for an entirely different purpose than taxable income. 

Claims that the BMT closes loopholes ignore the fact that the provisions resulting in different book and tax treatment were specifically enacted by Congress for sound policy reasons.  For example, the treatment of capital investments differs for book and tax purposes, in part to encourage companies to invest in capital assets in the United States.  As the left-leaning Tax Policy Center acknowledges, the BMT would discourage investment.

According to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, in 2023 alone the effects would include:

A real GDP reduction of $68.45 billion
218,108 fewer workers in the overall economy
A labor-income decrease of $17.11 billion
Further, the BMT will not prevent large companies from paying zero tax.  The energy tax provisions included in the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” would permit companies to receive those tax credits in excess of their tax liability.  In other words, not only will companies in Democrat-favored industries be able to pay zero tax, some will even be able to receive taxpayer-funded subsidies in excess of tax due for engaging in an activity that has been picked for government handouts. 

[/quote]

[northland10]

Schedule C (profit from a sole proprietor) and Schedule E (income from rents and royalties) are almost exclusively used by the lower-income individuals.

And those musicians who do side performance gigs such as weddings and funerals (at my parish, they are paid directly to me from the family/couple/funeral home). Many musicians use Schedule C as they do gig work beyond their normal salaried work.

[much ado]

Removed the preformatted text tag from the above post so that the text is allowed to wrap...

Proving how you’ve read the post and provided cogent observations.
As seems typical for some here.

(Whine sometimes but prefer wine.)

Do you come here for anything but making snotty comments and posting bird videos? I notice you didn't make any observations, cogent or otherwise. Just dropped a link and wandered off.

Read the link please, it’s about what is included in the legislation.
My observations aren’t as important as what’s in the legislation.
Read it, agree it’s good stuff or not but it’s all all a load of bull, yet we accept it. And vote for these fools.

And, oh by the way, both parties have been doing this BS for years.

Democrats claim the latest version of their tax-and-spend bill, the mislabeled “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” will ensure the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay their “fair share” by closing tax loopholes and boosting IRS funding, all without raising taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 per year. However, analyses from nonpartisan experts show the legislation would raise taxes on low- and middle-income Americans during a period of declining GDP and high inflation; raise taxes on manufacturers, exacerbating supply-chain disruptions, and costing U.S. jobs and investment; and do little to nothing to lower inflation.“

The more this bill is analyzed by impartial experts, the more we can see Democrats are trying to sell the American people a bill of goods,” said U.S. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo. “Non-partisan analysts are confirming this bill raises taxes on the middle class, raises taxes on manufacturers, and produces no meaningful deficit reduction when gimmicks are removed and the full cost is accounted for.”

Access this document here.

IRS FUNDING

MYTH: Increasing IRS funding by $80 billion will provide the agency with the resources it needs to go after wealthy tax cheats and corporations who don’t pay their fair share in taxes, generating more than $124 billion in additional revenue to go toward deficit reduction.

FACT: According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the brunt of any new revenue from hiring an army of IRS auditors will overwhelming hit low- and middle-income earners, people already struggling with high gas prices and 9.1 percent inflation. CBO scores the $80 billion for mandatory IRS funding as spending only, and gives phantom credit for potential enforcement revenue that might be generated in “future baselines.”

Background:

IRS funding breakdown—$80 billion in mandatory appropriations to the IRS:

$45.6 billion for enforcement purposes
$25.3 billion for operations support
$4.8 billion for business systems modernization
$3.2 billion for taxpayer services
How will the $45.6 billion for enforcement purposes be used to address the noncompliance tax gap?

According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, misreported trade or business activities (Schedule C items) or other income-producing activities (Schedule E items) make up a very significant portion of the overall noncompliance “tax gap.”

IRS data reproduced in the table below show that Schedule C or E tax enforcement assessments predominantly hit taxpayers who have low (or very low) Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), and nothing in the proposal would change that fact.

Based upon these data, out of all the revenue projected to be raised from underreported income:

40-57 percent could come from taxpayers making $50,000 or less;
65-78 percent from those making less than $100,000; and,
78-90 percent from those making less than $200,000.
Only around 4-9 percent could come from those making $500,000 or more.


BOOK MINIMUM TAX

MYTH: The book minimum tax (BMT) does not raise taxes; it closes loopholes by making large companies pay at least a 15 percent minimum tax.

FACT: The BMT is a $313 billion tax increase, with half of the increase falling on manufacturers, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. Despite proponents’ claims, the book minimum tax does not close tax loopholes. The BMT is calculated based on financial statement (“book”) income, which is a different set of rules established for an entirely different purpose than taxable income.

Claims that the BMT closes loopholes ignore the fact that the provisions resulting in different book and tax treatment were specifically enacted by Congress for sound policy reasons. For example, the treatment of capital investments differs for book and tax purposes, in part to encourage companies to invest in capital assets in the United States. As the left-leaning Tax Policy Center acknowledges, the BMT would discourage investment.

According to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, in 2023 alone the effects would include:

A real GDP reduction of $68.45 billion
218,108 fewer workers in the overall economy
A labor-income decrease of $17.11 billion
Further, the BMT will not prevent large companies from paying zero tax. The energy tax provisions included in the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” would permit companies to receive those tax credits in excess of their tax liability. In other words, not only will companies in Democrat-favored industries be able to pay zero tax, some will even be able to receive taxpayer-funded subsidies in excess of tax due for engaging in an activity that has been picked for government handouts.

[Gregg]

I have a girl who every month or so makes a house call to trim the wiener dog's nails and hair. I pay her $100. She has a studio in the village and I gues she does okay, people love her, dogs love her and getting an appointment is hard if you're not on her preferred list.

I'd guess off the top of my head she'd still be happy if she made a year what I pay quarterly in taxes. Just a guess.

But she pays more income tax that Elon Musk, the richest man in the world.

She pays more income tax than 55 Fortune 500 companies.

If Amazon pays more income tax than her next year, it wouldn't suck.

[Foggy]

FACT: According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the brunt of any new revenue from hiring an army of IRS auditors will overwhelming hit low- and middle-income earners, people already struggling with high gas prices and 9.1 percent inflation.

Umm, if "new revenue" will "hit" anyone, in the English language that means they get MORE revenue, which means more money.

So I am middle income and I will volunteer to take the "brunt" of being "hit" with more revenue, and thank you very much, Mike Crapo, you moron.

And yes, I do have a degree in International Economics from Georgetown University, and that isn't how things work at all, but let's simplify down to the elementary school level of discussion, which Mike Crapo excels at.

And what he's doing is trying to scare other morons like himself. So he is claiming that any new auditors at the IRS would go after low- and middle-income tax cheaters instead of the big boys. Is that simple enough to understand? With no evidence, of course, but that's the argument - it's the auditors who will "hit" the tax cheats, and Mike thinks they won't go after the big boys, they'll go after the little guys. The little guys who are cheating on their taxes and getting away with it because there aren't enough auditors now.

And it's a horrible thing, if all those little guys got caught cheating on their taxes and punished for it. Mike Crapo would cry all day about the tax cheats that he wants to keep cheating on their taxes.

Translation complete, no need to thank me, I do it for the children.