Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
trying to avoid politics here - interested in your views
investment only - I posted this on VIC, got no real response or even acceptance

Let's assume a demo president elected
they take the senate too

what do you think gets enacted?

Highly Probable or not?

*reversal of corporate tax cut - it seems obvious, doesn't it?
Highly Probable


*nation-wide min wage increase (already seeing 5% to 6% labor inflation in restaurants, so I
shudder what this will do)
Highly Probable

*some major revision in health care - no idea what it would be, but some are openly espousing destroying entire areas right now (UNH down 40 to 50 billion on the mere introduction of new legislation)
Probable

*financial transactions tax - I really think this will go in vogue eventually
Less Probable

*higher individual tax rates - esp. on the 'rich'
Highly Probable

*hit on Defense
Less Probable (just don't see the follow-thru)

Reason I ask
I think the corporate tax cut going away would alone cause a tremendous correction (not debating on whether it should be done or not) and I know Heath care might be a dangerous place to be (all the stocks in this area were setting up for carnage on election night before she lost).

Again, without getting into politics
the more extreme viewpoints have me really nervous, esp. as they all seem to be gaining traction
most seem to believe that the deficit doesn't matter and they don't strike me as pro business in terms of how I would understand it (again, not taking a political view here)

To reiterate, you can see how this affects individual stocks
by looking at the managed care companies, all of which went down in unison recently
it happened instantly, and in direct opposition of the 'current' setup
but we are one senate change away from anything someone can dream up being possible
or maybe probable?

And sure, I realize that none of this might come to pass, but I don't think anymore would be surprised to see these things happen, and some extreme things I'm not anticipating. I don't think anybody in power is going to sympathize with 'Wall street' types either...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
All very good questions, tax hikes without a doubt, harm to HC companies sure, maybe a min wage hike also.

The Senate map is not as good for Dems as it would seem with Rs having 22 seats to defend and Dems 12 seats including the special election in AZ.

Doug Jones a D in an R+14 Bama seat would seem to be toast. That puts Rs up 4 seats before any possible VP tiebreak [let's leave POTUS party aside for now]

Dems could hold Zona. They have a shot at Rs in CO and IA. It's hard for me to see them taking Susan Collins' seat, although of course anything can happen.

If they don't - where does that 50th seat come from? David Purdue in an R+5 southern state? Texas or 3 other R+9 states? With POTUS on the ballot I find that very difficult although not impossible to believe. And to get to 51 Dems would need to run AZ, IA, CO, ME, GA and a 6th and not lose any save AL [or win there again, highly doubtful].

How do you calculate Joe Manchin, D, WVa, who voted with POTUS 61% of the time, although against the tax cuts...? He may not be willing to vote for tax hikes in an economically depressed state. Same for a large min-wage increase. I dunno.

What if Cory Booker is the nominee? That seat is now up for grabs. Etc.


People hate Congress but love their Senators for some reason.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I don't think corporate tax cuts will go away. Sane people (all sides) have always argued it is a stupid policy to tax at 35% and incentivize companies to stash money abroad.

Likely on minimum wage increase.

Less likely but possible healthcare revision.

Agree with the rest.

Selfishly hoping for a return of the full SALT deduction. It's ironic that those who cry about "double taxation" of dividends and corporate gains should be so gleeful in screwing over almost everyone (Republicans and Democrats) in high-tax states through double taxation. Even countries, which derive no benefits from taxes paid to foreign governments, still allow tax credit or deduction for the foreign tax paid. You could argue that since states like California send more money to the Feds than they receive, the Feds are getting some benefit out of state taxes. (Less aid to state because state takes care of the roads or healthcare or welfare more, something liek that.)

To point out the obvious, (apart from the current president,) all nominees usually swing to the extreme during primaries and "pivot" (to use Romney's term) to the middle in the general election. So the Dems currently trying to "out-socialist" each other should be taken with a grain of salt.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think the corporate tax cut going away would alone cause a tremendous correction (not debating on whether it should be done or not)

I am not sure whether it will be rolled back completely. The market was going up before the tax cut and tax cut has not helped the GDP beyond couple of quarters. We may have some short-term pain but in the long-run over 2 to 5 year period that correction may be recovered.

Remember, even before the tax cut not many companies paid at 35% rate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
as they all seem to be gaining traction
most seem to believe that the deficit doesn't matter and they don't strike me as pro business in terms of how I would understand it


Here is why, 2/3rds of American household bankruptcies are due to medical issues. A very dear friend of mine last his wife, kidney transplant, complications leading to many weeks of hospitalization, alternate days of dialysis, she survived all of it and a simple flu, caused infection preventing dialysis, leading to death after a week of hospitalization.

We attended her funeral y'day and I came to know today my friend is looking at filing for bankruptcy today. He is an IT director for a big retailer, so not someone without means. But losing all the money, wife at 50 is horrible.

The folks who are worried about UNH share price are not going to understand why democrats health care changes resonates with people.

I don't know what is the right way to deal but you cannot work 25 years, be a responsible citizen, lived within means, and file bankruptcy at 50. That sucks, actually it is more than sucks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
1. financial transactions tax: yes
2. Social Security tax: some increase in the cut-off ceiling
3. other tax matters: no change, at least not near-term
4. health insurance: restoring the mandate to Obamacare; possibly a Medicare buy-in option for folks 55+; single-payer is not a politically viable model for the US; a Bismarck-style regulated private insurer model (e.g., Germany)is. More important long-term is not so much insurance per se as it is actually providing care affordably.
5. big sigh of relief internationally, which can only be good for markets
6. oh, also putting some of the teeth back into consumer financial protection
7. getting serious on climate-change, and in a way that provides economic oppty to workers in affected sunset industries.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The folks who are worried about UNH share price are not going to understand why democrats health care changes resonates with people.

It is hard to be civil about a crackhead cheap shot comment like this but let me point out the following:

*I have a legal fiduciary responsibility to care for my clients. I don't give a rat's you know what about what you think about me asking a question like this because you have no idea what my motivation is
*my clients are normal usual folks
*I've been dirt poor before - went 2 years without any appreciable salary
*most health care coverage has a catastrophic limit; too bad his didn't
*if college education has taught us anything, it is you cannot have a single unlimited payer because then there is no incentive to control costs
*costs are the problem - not coverage

Feel free to not respond to my posts anymore. For both our sakes, I am putting you on ignore from now on.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
3. other tax matters: no change, at least not near-term

can you expand?
why would you believe this?
I would have thought that the corporate tax cut would be the first thing that would be reversed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
For both our sakes, I am putting you on ignore from now on.

check that, it sounds like my own crackhead post

I am going to ignore your posts for a while
respond as you wish of course
but i thought your comment was absolutely heartless
hope you can see that
if you can't, then it proves my point
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
p.s.

i also rec'd your post even though....you know
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
p.p.s.

next name change
HeartlessB&stard
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
new name
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It is hard to be civil about a crackhead cheap shot comment like

Crackhead cheap shot?? Shame on you. Bye.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
you know, I would take that word out if I could
you have only my word on that
I'll ask Fool to remove it too

post if you want - nobody owns these board
course, if you can't see why that comment incensed me (and still does)
then I would suggest you not post on any of my topics
the net is a big world
I'll not reply to your notes in the future
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
i asked them to pull this
in the light of day, i was in a bad mood
I feel better now, having exercised, but given that Fool's tech
is from the 20th century, I can't erase Mr Hyde
all this said, at some point, it is time to move on from Fool
having been on slack for just a week, the differences are extraordinary

meanwhile, I'll take that break I needed
and listen to the crazies on tv
be well, and catch some fish
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Here is why, 2/3rds of American household bankruptcies are due to medical issues.

This is completely false as anyone would know who read the actual white papers and questionnaires as I have -- and they are sitting in front of me right now. It's literally #FakeNews.

Also, you have misquoted the data. The study said 49% of home foreclosures at the depths of the Great Recession was caused in part by a medical problem.

Only 37% of foreclosed respondents had as much as $2000 in medical bills out-of-pocket in the prior two years.

[A different survey of consumers filing BK showed only 26% having medical bills over $1k total in the prior two years not covered by insurance.]

Only 23% said 'unmanageable medical bills' were in PART or whole the cause of their foreclosure.


8% of those who self-reported a 'medical cause of foreclosure' said the reason was a drug, alcohol, or gambling addiction. Not really the story the media was pushing here, if you blew your money on crack or at the craps table, you can't honestly include this cohort with people who got cancer.

The original survey data asked respondents to list *all* of the bills that someone who was filed for foreclosure had outstanding, and professors/reporters seized on the inclusion of medical bills as part of that process as the *cause* of the bk process.

So, if someone was flipping houses and had 6 mortgages they couldn't pay when the music stopped and they filed BK, and part of their BK was a $50 CVS or co-pay they hadn't paid yet/were unable to as they were now broke, the medical bill was used as a cause of the bankruptcy.

36% of BK filers in the author's survey said increasing interest rates were the cause and a further 16% said their house 'was unaffordable from the beginning.'

This is how disinformation spreads.

As the white paper says, 'In many cases, homeowners were hit with a perfect storm of factors - a few thousand dollars in medical bills, a few weeks of missed work, rising interest rates and perhaps a divorce - all combined to push them over the edge into foreclosure.' [emphasis added]

Additionally, they surveyed only 4 states with high foreclosures at the depths of the Great Recession - CA, NJ, FL, IL and extrapolated to the whole country.

Studies in other states showed medical causes going down as a %, in Minnesota a survey of filers from 1991-2003 showed medical as a partial cause falling from 25 to 20% with money mismanagement and job loss increasing.

In 2007, Freddie Mac's survey showed job loss the biggest cause [as anyone with a brain would suspect] and illness as 'chief cause' ranking 2nd at 21% of filers.

Even among low-income, predominantly minority borrowers in Chicago, only 33% listed medical as a partial/main cause in 2005.

In St Louis, 42% who listed 'medical debt' as a partial cause of their housing problems had less than $1k of debt.


11% said a 'death in the family' was a 'medical cause of foreclosure.' Again, this is separate from 'medical bills.' I can only surmise this cohort is where parents were paying kids mortgage and died thus removing the income stream.

Only 8% said illness/injury preventing them from working was the cause.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Naj, even if most bankruptcies WERE a result of medical issues (which, as you point out, is not the case), it still doesn’t mean that this is because of inadequate health insurance. If you are bankrupt at 50 because your wife died of cancer, it may mean you had a precarious business that relied on her contributions (to the business or to the family).

And in the exceptional case where it was medical bills that tipped you over, it would be because health care is so obscenely expensive, and you accept to pay any amount for tiny gains from services that are not covered. This may be psychologically natural to do, in a culture where everyone else seems to do this and where you don’t want to set any limit on spending for your dear wife, but we shouldn’t blame health insurance for that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I would have thought that the corporate tax cut would be the first thing that would be reversed.

1. Even a fair number of Dems understand the competitive disadvantage of a high US corp tax rate (even if the effective tax rate for many corps was well below the nominal rate). Some loopholes might get eliminated, though. From an investment perspective, I don't see it as a big deal either way.

2. It's not a priority. Affordable health care (including sustainable Medicare and Medicaid) is. Dealing with climate change in a way that expands opportunity for left-out Americans is. Putting Social Security back on a sustainable path (mostly by raising the cutoff ceiling modestly over time) is.

Getting back to the gist of the original post, I might add that a (proper) concern with deficit reduction and tax equity--by genuine conservatives as well as by progressives--might well focus on making effective taxation of investment income more commensurate with effective taxation of wage income. Since 100% of my income (other than Social Security) is the former, this would cost me. And I would support it (within reason).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Only 8% said illness/injury preventing them from working was the cause

I understand the data I referred was taken 2009 right after the great recession and somewhat skewed. On the other hand, take a look at Kaiser report (from the industry, not by any policy folks, no skewing).

Calling the other number Fake news is incorrect, you can argue the timing and some of the question skew. But 8% is clearly the Fake news.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you are bankrupt at 50 because your wife died of cancer, it may mean you had a precarious business that relied on her contributions (to the business or to the family).

She was not working and remember my friend works as IT director for a major retailer.

I don't use my company's insurance because the gold or platinum one that I like costs $24K per year for the family and I have switched to my spouses.

The healthcare costs are out of control, what is the solution can be debated, but something needs to be done.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And in the exceptional case where it was medical bills that tipped you over, it would be because health care is so obscenely expensive, and you accept to pay any amount for tiny gains from services that are not covered. This may be psychologically natural to do, in a culture where everyone else seems to do this and where you don’t want to set any limit on spending for your dear wife, but we shouldn’t blame health insurance for that.

I realize this is not a typical case. But if you are unlucky enough to encounter it, what is your alternative? The extra spending may not be "tiny gains," it could be the difference between life and death. Say there is an experimental therapy that costs $100K but saves life in only 10% of the patients. Should medical insurance deny spending that money based on probability? How about 50% but costs $1 million? It is their decision... even if the doctor has some (major) influence. If they deny it, you should darn well blame them.
It is inconsistent too, sometimes they approve, sometimes they deny. It's a crapshoot (in US. I imagine in Canada you just crawl into a hole and die politely, since you are too expensive to keep alive.)

(Never mind that if you or someone you love is ill, you are vulnerable and prone to believe even charlatans and wildly unscientific "therapists." Though of course medical insurance should not cover that.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Say there is an experimental therapy that costs $100K but saves life in only 10% of the patients. Should medical insurance deny spending that money based on probability? How about 50% but costs $1 million? It is their decision... even if the doctor has some (major) influence. If they deny it, you should darn well blame them.


What most countries with public health care systems do is they set a limit in how much they will pay per year of life. If you have a 50% chance of living 6 months longer, and it costs $1m, then it is $1m*/(0.5y*50%)=$4m per life year, and they will say no. People don’t always like it, but it makes sense. It makes sense in any insurance scheme that there is some cap on the liability.

dtb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
6. oh, also putting some of the teeth back into consumer financial protection

I know this is one of your specialties
if you have time one day to expand
what and where specifically do you see abuse?
I think the single biggest problem we have in this country
is outright financial illiteracy...

I think your number #7 is written with your heart, not your head. What would you have us do to china?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
what and where specifically do you see abuse?
I think the single biggest problem we have in this country is outright financial illiteracy...

I think your number #7 is written with your heart, not your head. What would you have us do to china?


My main concern is with folks who are financially vulnerable owing to long-standing (i.e., inter-generational) structural inequities. (See, e.g., David Brooks's recent op-ed.) They're financially illiterate because they've never had much money, at best barely making enough to get through the month. Or they're elderly. Or disabled. Or are barely literate to begin with. They're prey to all sorts of vultures: rent-to-own scams, re-fi scams, student loan scams, 30% APR credit card scams, 25% APR used car loan scams, payday loan scams, income tax prep scams, etc., etc. I see it every week. My organization in Detroit does its best to educate and protect vulnerable people, but we can't reach everyone. There should be (more) sensible legal protections.

And #7 is absolutely written with my head. I've worked with experts on climate change (e.g., at the NAS) since the 1980s and with DoD experts, where the consensus is that this is a pressing national security issue, as natives get restless when they no longer have enough to eat or drink due to desertification. As for China, they're taking steps, even if much more needs to be done. In any event, the US remains well behind W. Europe in energy efficiency. And we must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Finally, smart solutions do not entail "freezing in the dark." Much of Europe enjoys better quality of life than US does, and with much less energy consumption. The data are very clear on that.

PS: You asked, so I answered. But I'm not trying to convince anyone here of anything and don't wish to get dragged into any arguments. Peace.
Print the post Back To Top