I think those 26-30 can buy just major med and it is much cheaper. She might also do well with college insurance or she might qualify for a subsidy or medicaid depending on her income.
There is also the possibility of policies not ACA compliant coming back. I used to have a low coverage policy for my kids when they were young that was about $80/mo. They couldn’t get a heart transplant or have a baby, but they could go to the doctor, dentist, eye doctor, get glasses, get prescriptions and it really covered much more than we needed. I’d love for that policy to come back, with or without a subsidy.
Perhaps a low-cost, high deductible, catastrophic plan would be best for such folks. Being a heathy person, she has no need for the first dollar care of the ACA.
I have an MBA and my “related work” in undergrad (what most colleges called a minor) was in economics. I don’t understand why the supporters of the bill think this will help the lower class and middle class through trickle down economics. It has always seemed to me that when we help bring the standard of living up for the lowest economic groups in the short term that the long term effect is an increase for all economic classes through the increased consumption. When you levy additional taxes on so many in the middle class, there is no choice for them but to reduce discretionary spending which will hurt the economy. Lindsey Graham must get some props for being honest enough to say this is about repaying their big donors who will dry up if not paid back with a tax cut.
Even the Nytimes thinks most middle class families will get a tax cut at least until 2027. It seems unlikely a future Congress would allow the individual tax cuts to expire.
Indeed. And isn’t that the argument being promulgated? (Not saying that I buy it, but that is the economic argument. And, if growth is even a few (xx) basis points over the CBT forecast, the increase in the deficit could be much less.)
That is not the argument being promulgated. Rather, the argument is that giving money to rich people and corporations will help people in the lowest economic group.
It shows that the majority of people in all income groups get tax cuts-- if you ignore Medicaid. But the minority of people in the middle class who are getting additional taxes nevertheless constitute a significant number of people.
Sorry, I must have missed that part. Could you refer me to one article where a politician says that he/she wants to 'give money to the rich (however defined) to help the lower SES?
“It shows that all income groups — including people earning less than $30,000 — receive a tax cut.{/quote]”
Yes, some people in all income groups will get a tax cut. But not all people will and not all people considered “middle class” will get a tax cut. Some will get a tax increase.
How’s that tax approach working out in Kansas so far?
So far they haven’t put the tax waiver in the Senate version from what I can tell, BUT they are working on amendments to keep all the needed Senator’s happy, and still have to reconcile with the House version.
Apparently they have placated Corker with a plan to trigger tax increases if the bill doesn’t bring the projected economic growth. But no details have been released. I am extremely interested in how they would measure that growth (is it for people like you and me – like, WAGE GROWTH? Hahaha – I doubt it!) And WHOSE taxes would go up in that situation?
Not only that, let’s have a little thought experiment here with regard to Corker’s cork. What is likely to cause revenue to fall short. Hmm, maybe a recession? So during the recession, when we will suffer from a lack of demand we will, wait for it, raise taxes and make less money available for consumption. #DeathSpiral
As Justin Wolfers said, this is a good proposal for opposite day.
