Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:52 PM) Funny you mention that. I know two people in that exact situation, with oh, 200+K in law school debt. Now they don't want to practice law cause they don't like it, etc, and want to do very blah work which won't pay much anything. They'll pay pretty much the minimum while getting the rest forgiven. And by forgiven, I mean, let other people who were responsible pay for it. It is a complete case of people taking advantage of things. The real purpose was to relieve people who really did get in way too over their heads. All this said, the answer shouldn't be, well, we'll just punish everyone who did it right and make them pay more. And really it was implemented to be a SHORT-TERM solution, kinda like most welfare. Here's a crutch WHEN YOU NEED IT. But, as with every social safety net, it becomes an entitlement that gets abused. You can't fault people for doing it, but it sucks when you're the one scrounging to pay that stuff off in full while others don't.

Yep, bingo. That was my point.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 02:37 PM) As my income goes up, the amount I pay will, in turn, go up. Not sure what you're getting at here. IMO any significant "saving and retirement" money should be going to pay of your loans, if it's a realistic possibility that in 25 years a balance on your loans will be forgiven.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 02:24 PM) Good luck trying that. People can pay what they can (per an income based formula) for 25 years and then the rest of the money is forgiven.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 02:11 PM) Right... But the struggle resulted in a job I love that also allows me to save and build up a retirement portfolio, all while having awesome adventures. Win/win/win. All while not paying back your student loans in full. Let Uncle Sam pick up that tab, right?

That's how I feel about the entire Seattle team. Mainly because their two mouthpieces are Lynch and Sherman, two of the most unlikable people in the league (and that's saying something).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 12:25 PM) The Congressional Budget office was tasked with doing a 20 year projection by Congress prior to passage of the PPACA. That projection would have covered the years 2016-2025. There are numbers available that can be compared to these estimates. The actual program cost is coming in hundreds of billions of dollars less than those projections. The only reason why anyone would compare projections of 2010-2020 costs done in 2009 with projections of 2016-2025 costs done now when 2009-vintage projections of costs from 2016-2025 are available is that they are being willfully deceptive. There is no excuse for it whatsoever. It is flat out false and anyone peddling it should be embarrassed. Sure, but Obama didn't sell that 20 year number, he sold the 10.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 12:11 PM) That's pretty damn critical. If you're looking at 2010-2020, you have a four whole years without federal exchange subsidies at all (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013) and several years without full Medicaid expansion. The period 2016-2025 has almost the entirety of the law in place and functioning. Those numbers were always very different, going back to the start. Think of it like this: the cost of the Iraq War from 1995-2005 would look a heck of a lot different than the cost from 2001-2011. The cost of WWII from 1930-1940 would look a lot different than 1935-1945. That's the sort of comparison you're trying to make here. And this legislation has, in fact, become smaller since the original CBO projections for the period 2016-2025. 20% smaller, but the Daily Mail thinks so little of its readers that it didn't bother to report that. edit: this article from 2012 explains what's wrong with these shenanigans ACA opponents have been trying to play for years: Obama in 2009: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.) Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term." The CBO report in 2015: the program is costing 1.99 trillion from 2016-2025. How it that not anymore misleading than the Daily Mail? Obama is telling people, hey don't worry, this is a decent price, 900 billion over the next 10 years. I won't tell you that for the subsequent 10 years it'll be more than double that. Come on. And the war comparisons are irrelevant. If in October 2011 Bush came out and said we need to invade Iraq and it's going to cost us 900 billion over 10 years to do it, and then 5 years later the projections are more than double that, you wouldn't say "oh well all sorts of things happened in the mean time and the President can't set budgets alone!" You'd nail him for misleading the public about a costly and expensive war that was now way off budget and costing us more and more into the future. This wasn't a budget on a pre-existing program. He had to sell the program at a certain cost and it's now more than that. Yes, the Daily Mail was playing some games by going back to his original projection in 2009 and not including the full projection to 2025, but so what? That's what Obama said. I don't think it's taking it out of context anymore than Obama not telling people the costs would keep going up after those first 10 years. That was a typo and should have been 150%, but yes obviously my guesstimate wasn't accurate.

You're welcome. I want my prize.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 11:57 AM) So how 'bout that Probowl? Did anything happen (lol)?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 11:24 AM) You are seriously this easily taken in? Really? I mean, no, seriously? Cost estimate by the CBO of $900 billion = years 2010 through 2020. Cost estimate by the CBO of $2 trillion = the 2016-2025 period. You're seriously that easily taken in? I mean come on, put some effort into it. This was a good report. The program has already cut enough costs that its estimated cost went down another $100 billion this year compared to last year's estimate of the 2016-2025 window, and that number was already down from what the CBO predicted during that 10 year window in their initial projections. I don't think it's really wrong to hold a politician accountable for what he says when trying to sell policy to Congress and the people. Yes, it was 2009, not 1989. Yes, the projections are for slightly different years, not 50 years. You're talking about a 50% mark-up on what he was telling people, even if that's not what was ultimately passed (as if any legislation that starts with one number EVER becomes smaller by the end of the process).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 10:18 AM) lol daily mail crack journalism there! Other news agencies have a slightly different headline: The Hill: Budget office lowers ObamaCare price tag by 20 percent Reuters: Obamacare To Cost Far Less Than Estimated, Budget Office Says Bloomberg: Obamacare Will Cost 20% Less Than Initial Projections, CBO Says Maybe that's because The Daily Mail is using a speech by Obama in 2009 about his proposal that didn't actually become a law instead of using the actual CBO forecasts of the actual law. It's almost as if an outfit owned by Rupert Murdoch isn't a legitimate news outlet at all. As for the 29-30 million still uninsured by 2025, yes, that's awful. But again, the Daily Mail is portraying things one way while the actual CBO report stresses it very differently: That's a greater-than-50% reduction in the number of uninsured people in this country. There are better, simpler ways to get that reduction or even better, but this was more or less the best thing that could pass the late 2010 Senate with 60 votes. Excuses, excuses. The point remains - the program he sold to the American people and Congress is more expensive and not as effective as he predicted.

I'm a habitual "watch X game and post on my phone" person.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-29...get-report.html Obamacare now estimated to cost us 2 TRILLION dollars instead of the 900 BILLION Obama originally forecasted. edit: that's just the government portion, not any private increase in premiums/out-of-pocket expenses. And 30 million Americans are still going to be uninsured. What a great program!

STOP THE PRESSES THEY FOUND THE BALL BOY WHO DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beckman is apparently telling people he was convinced he was taking the job. How do you get convinced about that unless the guy straight up lies to you?

Thibs still upset that Moore slept with his gf. Hinrich still getting the PT for some inexplicable reason.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 06:18 PM) Now imagine those same problems with half or less of that income and you're the average American. Our loans suck up a lot of that difference. But yes, it could be worse. I'm just saying the dollar figure isn't as striking as it may seem.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:50 PM) Per capita taxation in Illinois, even when adding in local taxes, is very low relative to other states In 2011 we were 17th according to this: http://taxfoundation.org/article/facts-fig...r-state-compare

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:42 PM) I'd rather we get back to fully publicly funded world-class universities than having a bunch of Rube Goldberg 10-20 year tax incentive programs. It seems like a much more reliable and even-handed way of assuring access to higher education for everyone, poor to wealthy. Yeah how's that working out for our k-12 systems? No thanks.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:19 PM) The other question comes in to what is "wealthy". I will always argue "wealthy" is different depending on where you live (maybe that is cause I life in California where cost of living is absurd). Wealth almost needs to be based upon some form of COL factor by area. The reality is there are pretty significant differences in cost of living depending on where you live. Middle Class means 25K - 75K which is a pretty wide ass definition and upper mid is in the low 100's IIRC. Which is f***ing laughable. My wife and I make a good living (e.g., upper class by that definition) and can barely afford our student loans, house and 1 child in day care with a smidge left over to save for baby #2, which will increase that daycare cost to a mid-level car a year. We live in a nice community with good schools, but still. That actual dollar figure of our income is laughably inconsistent with our lifestyle ability.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:12 PM) Having a whole bunch of different loopholes like 529's that people will call "punishment" if they're modified or eliminated is why our tax system is so complicated, you know. 529 is pretty straight forward and it's really a loophole. Put your money here, anything that it makes is tax free if used for college. That's the extent of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:04 PM) It's a very weird mindset, to me anyway, to see loss of privileged status as punishment. Are we sure about that? And even if so, it's overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy from the start, so it's a very poorly designed program if that wasn't the goal. The 529 changes and the AOTC expansion are part of a much broader reform proposal. Either way, that's a completely dishonest reading of what is going on here. 529 plans ostensibly exist to help the middle class, but they really don't. An expansion of the AOTC could help them much more, and we can end preferential tax treatment that the well-off don't need to fund education. If you want to keep 529's around just as another tax break for the well-off, okay, but be honest about it. It doesn't really help lower/middle class Americans pay for college, at least not nearly as much as alternative programs could. It would be more honest to say "this program is supposed to help the middle class pay for college, but it's primarily just a tax break for the wealthy. Let's instead use those expenditures to actually help the middle class." It COULD be and SHOULD be. Just because it isn't doesn't mean it's a bad law. Sometimes forcing people to be smart with their money is still good policy, even if the end result is it benefits the rich more than the middle class. Add another tax to the rich in another area if you want to offset it, that's fine with me. I'm thinking of someone who is middle class or upper middle class, by no means rich, wanting to send their kid to a private school or an out of state school and taking smart and voluntarily decisions for the decade prior to actually using the 529 as intended. To me, those people still get more out of tax free growth in that account than a 2,500 credit. Over a 15 year period any decent investment vehicle is going to deliver more than 10k even with modest contributions.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:55 PM) Matt / Jenks (and anyone else), I'll try to break down my understanding of the two based upon a hypothetical scenario. I'm not in all the details of this as I haven't yet had to do a tax return based upon all these, but I'll outline it as I understand it and how you can get the general benefits. Clearly there are nuances depending on your individual income levels but I'm going to use a hypothetical scenario of a married couple filing jointly with a household income of $75K. Income = 75K Children = 1 Eligible Child Care Expenses = 12,000 Tax Rate = 25% Dependent FSA: Contributed maximum of $5,000 and you used these accounts to pay for 5000 of your 12,000 in expenses. On this $5K, this money was taken off the top (similar to an IRA) and you did not pay federal income taxes on it nor did you pay social security tax or medicare taxes. That represents a 7.65% savings plus your effective tax rate of 25%, thus you have ultimately saved 32.65% (or $1632.50). Now because you have spent more than just 5,000, but have an income of $75K, you are entitled to a 20% deduction of your remaining medical expenses (capped at $3K in expenses; because you have 1 child). This means that now your child care expenses from 5,001 - 8,000 will be eligible for a 20% tax deduction / benefit, which equates to $600 in savings. The remaining 4,000 in child care expenses will be fully based upon after tax income. Total tax savings using the two programs = 2432.50 (on 8,000). If you had a 2nd child, than you would essentially be eligible for an additional $600's (meaning only 1,000 in child care expenses would be fully based upon after tax income as you would apply this portion of the benefit to 8,001 - 11,000 in day care spent). Well hell, I didn't realize you could do both. I f***ing hate our tax system. So needlessly complicated. I think i've pissed away about 600 bucks the last two years not doing this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 03:46 PM) You seem to be shifting from wanting to help the middle class to calling for more deductions and tax credits for the upper-middle/upper class. edit: or at least preserving those tax credits instead of re-purposing them for a program that could help a broader range of people. It also always strikes me as really weird to view a reduction or removal of preferential tax treatment as "punishment." Why? It is. Obama is literally looking at this program (which wasn't designed for the rich, it was designed for the middle class) and saying "too many rich people are using this and it's benefiting them so i'm going to take it away."