Revisiting the Ryan Roadmap: Tax Freedom for Billionaires
The Ryan Roadmap was introduced and then dropped into obscurity as Republicans simply ignored it and appararantly its author, the House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan. Well that was then, today that is CHAIRMAN Paul Ryan and the official respondee to the SOTU plus the man who has unilateral control over budget levels this year. Not exactly ‘Paul Who?’ any more. So in the interest of public education let’s take a little trip on Paul’s highway.
A Roadmap for America’s Future: from budget.house.gov and specifically its ‘Tax Reform’ page.
Provides individual income tax payers a choice of how to pay their taxes – through existing law, or through a highly simplified code that fits on a postcard with just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits, or exclusions (except the health care tax credit).
Simplifies tax rates to 10 percent on income up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts. Also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).
Eliminates the alternative minimum tax [AMT].
Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.
Replaces the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – with a border-adjustable business consumption tax of 8.5 percent. This new rate is roughly half that of the rest of the industrialized world.
Billionaires don’t become such by paying themselves large salaries, it taking 100 years to earn your first billion even with a salary of $10 million a year, instead they gain that wealth by accumulating capital and taking gains on it in the form of actual capital gains as defined and interest and dividends. None of which are taxable under the roadmap. Nor are any future disbursements from their grandchildren’s Trust Funds. Tax Freedom FOREVER! Hurray!! If you chose your grandparents right. (Me? Not so much).
But gosh wouldn’t exempting all returns on capital from taxation blow a hole in the budget? I meant the Right spends endless time complaining that the lower 40% don’t pay taxes. Au contraire mon frere. Per CBO this is all free!! At least once they adopted the scoring rules provided them by Ryan’s staff.
The proposal would make significant changes to the tax system. However, as specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario (which is one interpretation of what it would mean to continue current fiscal policy) until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.
See how easy that is!! Just tell CBO to not score the cost of your tax cuts and BINGO! Balanced budget!!! Well in year 50, but still.
This is the man official Washington is swooning over as being “serious”. Sorry folks Ryan and his Roadmap are frauds, more like the Tour Guide and Map to VoodooLand than anything.
The economic meltdown is unfortunately being extended and escalated by the billionaires and trillionaires of the world. My four point economic plan would help redistribute EARNED WEALTH, and in the end that would actually help the billionaires.
http://wallstreetchange.blogspot.com/2010/11/2010-after-election-4-point-economic.html
Inverting interest rate dividends so the ultra wealthy get the smallest interest rate while those who are defined as the middle class and lower got the highest interest rate returns would have an almost instant stabilizing effect on the economy.
I remember a conversation I had with someone praising the merits of the “flat income tax.” I reminded him that the tax rate can be less important to individual taxpayers than what gets taxed. If 100% of earned income gets taxed but some types of unearned income such as certain municipal bonds are exempt from all tax, then you win if you live exclusively on exempt unearned income and lose if you work. Ryan is in the enviable position of both writing a proposal and telling CBO how to score it. His “what if” numbers are wonderful for his purposes. But, really aren’t worth a tinker’s dam otherwise. NancyO
Bruce, and the other liberals here, when are you folks going to realize the dangerous financiel situation we are in? We are aspending ~$98 of every $100 dollars of revenue collected on mandatory spending (entitlements and interest). Since the interest rates remain low, while the Fed is implementing QE(X) which is loewring the value of the dollar and will quite probably eventuate in higher interest rates, then the interest protion of thebudget is al;most sure to rise, eating up the remaining $2 of revenues.
Since ionterest rates are near record lows, it is ludicrous to think that they will remain there. So future bond offerings will be sold at higher rates adding more to the interest payment portion of the budget. If interest rates rise to historically average levels, then the interest payment portion will double or triple from it’s ~6.7%. So the achilles heel of the current Obama version/CBO baseline is rising interest and entitlement spending.
Ryan has a plan to slow all Federal spending, and by doing so slowing the rate of increase in the annual deficits and overall debt held by the public.
If you don’t read the CBO letter at least look at the charts. The charts estimating the annual deficits along with the chart projecting GNP growth are important. You might not like his plan, but without a Dem alternative, there isn’t much for a comparative discussion. Without discussion all we have is b$tch$ng.
Ryan lied about the impact of his taxcuts.
Can you address the substance here?
And I read the CBO letter. Did you? They get as close to calling Ryan a liar as CBO can do, pointing out twice that they are just working off his revenue numbers which among other things assume lots of people will just continue to lay taxes under the old system even with it’s complications and higher rates.
Clown show meant to convince the innumerate and enable the hand wavers.
Lied? CBO was asked to score a Road Map/Plan, jnot actual legislation. The discussed menaings and estimates with Ryanb’s staff. The CBO letter said this: “However, as specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario (which is one interpretation of what it would mean to continue current fiscal policy) until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.”
And in the body of the letter CBO says:
“The analysis in this letter does not represent a cost estimate for your proposal. Producing such an estimate would require a more detailed analysis of the Roadmap’s many provisions, rather than the fairly mechanical extrapolations that underlie most of the findings presented here. Moreover, CBO’s cost estimates generally apply only to the 10-year budget projection period, because the uncertainties about the budgetary effects of legislation (especially regarding health care) are simply too great beyond that span.”
And in Attachment A they say:
“CBO did not model tax revenues explicitly. Instead, Congressman Ryan’s staff specified that total federal tax revenues would follow revenues in the alternative fiscal scenario until they reached 19 percent of GDP in 2030 and would remain at that level thereafter.”
Which were the “Raod Map” goals. Legislation would have to be crafted to effect these limits.
So, you can interpret, by reading between the lines, some level of disengenuousness from the Ryan staff. But, until a Dem equivalent is produced, then it is just your opinion over anyone else’s.
Bruce, why the angry name calling? Why not actually discuss the substance, even though there isn’t a lot, of the Road Map versus taking side line pot shots.
Do you recognize the financial risk we are facing?
Well, Rev, if this CBO letter is only talkining about a sketch of the “Road Map” and not legislation, then why is it important? If Ryan wanted a piece of paper to hold in his hand and wave around during speeches, he could have used one he wrote himself or even a blank sheet of paper. What was the point of this exercise? Isn’t it silly to say,”Pretend all the numbers are the same as if the current code stays in effect” when the whole point of Ryan’s Road Map is to replace the existing tax code and budget process.”
I am very good at believing two completely contradictory things at the same time. You learn that in the federal government. But, what Ryan and you are saying doesn’t make sense. NancyO
CoRev I get angry because after some years I have found you not to be an honest interlocutor but with the ability to maintain a facade of being such. Which has cost me and other Bears hundreds of hours, maybe thousands to address.
Ryan’s Roadmap effectively exempts all returns from capital from taxation even as it cuts marginal rates. And then demands that CBO score all that as revenue neutral. And doesn’t even rely on Supply Side Voodoo to do so. It just is what they demand it to be.
CoRev if you don’t want fleas don’t lie down with lying dogs.
Financial risk? Which is worse? We can impoverish our population now because we speculate a future disaster will occur. Or, we can work over time to resolve the problem. Not enough tax revenue? Raise taxes! This is like quitting eating to catch up on credit card debt. And, to quote ilsm, show me the peace that ever lost us money. NancyO
CoRev CBOs “Alternative Model” is based on current tax policy. Ryan radically alters that yet insists it not be scored and that CBO present projections far beyond their normal ten year window so that Ryan could claim CBO support for his longterm balanced budget claim. A claim swallowed and reguritated bythe “lanestream media” in a mostly successful attempt to prove that Ryan actually had a Plan. A claim you repeated on this thread without actually addressing specifics. Again and still.
Shifting from Ryan to me for name calling doesn’t add much to the discussion.
You claim: “And then demands that CBO score all that as revenue neutral.” Words have impact, and “demands” is not what I got from the letter. It appeared to be a simple request for additional information from CBO to Ryan’s staff. “Revenue neutral” usually means: “…provisions estimated to add revenue were offset by others estimated to reduce revenue,…” I did not find anything implying that in Ryan’s Road map nor in the letter. CBO said: “CBO did not model tax revenues explicitly.” I don’t know if that was because it was not possible, they did not want to, were not asked to, or were lied to, in your words. I doubt the latter because there appeared to be an ongoing dialog.
What specifically are you objecting to with his tax cuts? You appear, at theis point, to be griping because they are there. Cuts and not increases? I dunno.
If you do not want to discuss it just say so. If you wrote the article just to emote/rant, that’s fine, but don’t turn your anger on someone trying to discuss it.
BTW, you have yet to answer my question over the financial risks.
Bruce said: “Ryan radically alters that yet insists it not be scored and that CBO present projections far beyond their normal ten year window so that Ryan could claim CBO support for his longterm balanced budget claim.” alters what? His Road Map is not the alternative/baseline. It is meant to be different.
I agree that Ryan used CBO to add some political credibility to his plan. It’s what Pols do, don’cha know?
CoRev maybe you find a lot of space between “specified” and “demanded” but I found the fact that CBO staff brought that specification up twice telling.
As to what I find objectionable do you endorse the idea that holders of capital and particularly very large holders have ZERO responsibility to even pay for the Common Defense? Which is the implication of the Roadmap
As to financial risk I can’t take someone who would endorse excluding whole categories of income from taxation while lowering top rates seriously when they raise this. Save your crocodile tears for someone that does ‘t own a calculator
“Ryan has a plan to slow all Federal spending”
Ryan has a plan to balloon the federal deficit by cutting taxes for the weathy.
When are you going to realize the dangerous financiel [sic] situation we are in, CoRev? Tax cuts for the wealthy won’t fix anything.
Bruce I do see a great deal of difference between “demand” and “speicified” in an ongoing dialog asking for background. As to your objection to exempting capital income, noted. I have a different intperpratation for exemting investment/savings from taxes. But, I’m a conservative and believe in personal property and rights. We have different beleifs here. No?
I’m sorry Bruce, but this is just more rant. Ryan is trying to solve a percieved problem. Do you not perceive there to be a problem with $98 of every $100 dollars of revenue required for mandatory spending?
Rev–I am not about to relinquish my rights in my personal property nor do I advocate doing so for anyone. To contribute to the general welfare is the price of participation in our society. Of course, my mistake may lie in thinking we have anything like a “general welfare.” If I could bring myself to give up the rights and privileges given to me as a citizen of this country, then I could agree to let others escape from their part of the social contract. Otherwise, fuhgeddaboudit! Good for you if you are rich. Woe unto you if you’re not is not my idea of a constitutionally guaranteed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. NancyO
Joel said: “Tax cuts for the wealthy won’t fix anything.” Ok, then propose a plan. Do some simple calculations, and then let us comment on it.
“Perceived problem?” Rev, old pal, I rather doubt that $98% of every federal dollar spent is borrowed. Not in regard to SS, certainly. So, what about the two wars we are waging? Gee, ya think there is something we can do about that? Maybe that’s the 98% borrowing you’re talking about. Hey, let’s agree to talk about the same thing. Otherwise, I despair of of making myself understood to you. NO
I suspect some people object to Ryan’s tax cuts that, by fiat to the CBO, do not reduce government revenues and therefore don’t increase the deficit calculations. We’ve heard that one many times in the past. If you are serious about deficit reduction, you can’t be serious about that Roadmap.
Regarding these tax cuts, I also wish to note that individual income taxes are insufficient to cover defense spending plus interest on debt–forget everything else that it’s supposed to cover, like Commerce, Treasury, Justice, Interior, et al. We borrow for that stuff. And it will be worse if/when interest rates climb. Meanwhile, Social Security taxes account for about 40 percent of revenues while Social Security benefits account for about 20 percent of spending. About half the federal taxes paid by individuals come from a regressive tax system, and about half from a progressive system (which is full of loopholes for the wealthiest). You see, CoRev, anybody can play silly, meaningless games with budget numbers. You can choose your partial truths to fool some of the people some of the time, but others will choose different partial truths.
NO said: “What was the point of this exercise? Isn’t it silly to say,”Pretend all the numbers are the same as if the current code stays in effect” when the whole point of Ryan’s Road Map is to replace the existing tax code and budget process.” It was a political move to add some credibility to a minority Congressman’s proposal. He did not pretend all the number … code stays the same. It was the CBO baseline. Yes, his proposal is a drastic tax/spending change to solve a percieved problem.
Do you believe we have a problem? Do you believe it is serious?
My point has been we have a republican/conservative solution, but not a Democratic solution. Either there is disbelief or denial in the Dem camp.
No matter how many times I present the problem and the question (do you believe there is aproblem) I can not get an answer.
CoRev
3% tax raise across the board. one half of one tenth of one percent per year raise in FICA. calculations provided in my previous posts.
PJR, I’m not sure what your point is here: …and therefore don’t increase the deficit calculations.” Are you trying to say increase (or cut) the deficits? Or are you trying to say something about numbers of calculations?
Furthermore, I’m not sure where you are aiming this:
“You see, CoRev, anybody can play silly, meaningless games with budget numbers.” Is silly, meaningless games aimed at me? Or, are you talking about Ryan’ tax cut proposals?
I have said before that I have always ended up paying more taxes after various “tax reductions.” So, they increase, I’ll pay them. For example, my husband’s SS benefits were taxed because of our income because of Regan tax “cuts”. Similarly, Reagan did away with interest deductions for those who itemized, remember? And, included federal employees in HI taxes they were already paying for through employee health insurance. Boy, did I ever make out like a bandit on those Reagan era tax cuts! NOT. NO
3% of what? What are the limits of your board? ~33% of our spending is not covered by revenues (borrowed) after your 3% tax rise that still leaves is with ~30% still borrowed.
So what problem are you trying to solve with your 3%. No caluclations were provided in your prior post, just this questionable 3% plan.
Repeating the same thing many times over does not ever make it more correct.
3% of what? What are the limits of your board? ~33% of our spending is not covered by revenues (borrowed) after your 3% tax rise that still leaves is with ~30% still borrowed.
So what problem are you trying to solve with your 3%. No caluclations were provided in your prior post, just this questionable 3% plan.
Repeating the same thing many times over does not ever make it more correct.
Hmm. What to think about this statement, Rev. “A political move to add credibility to a minority Congressman’s proposal.” Oy. Ryan is in the majority now, and if all this was just blowing smoke, WHY SHOULD WE CARE WHAT HE SAYS? NancyO
NO, you either did not understand what I wrote, misread it, or I was not clear. I also “I rather doubt that $98% of every federal dollar spent is borrowed.” What I said was that ~$98 of every $100 of revenue is required for mandatory spending (entitlements and interest.) That is dramatically different than your understanding of what you think I said.
Yes I agree: “ Hey, let’s agree to talk about the same thing. Otherwise, I despair of of making myself understood to you.” So let’s talk about Ryan’s Road Map.
I believe that ideally capitalists should be tax paying citizens. Ryan has a different view.You????
Rev–I am a poor wayfaring stranger here. I can only read what you say and think about the words. But, don’t you think that if we don’t have enought tax revenue coming in we have to raise taxes to get more? I already explained the part about giving up eating to pay a debt. There are 310 million people living here. That many people aren’t cheap to govern. This isn’t hard. We have to pay for this and rich people have to pay taxes too. NO
NO, you answered your own question: “WHY SHOULD WE CARE WHAT HE SAYS? Ryan is in the majority now, and if all this was just blowing smoke, Oy.” Not only in the majority but chairman of the key committee.
NO, don’t ask me about my views, “But, don’t you think that if we don’t have enought tax revenue coming in we have to raise taxes to get more?” Bruce wanted to present, again, the Ryan Road Map.
I’ve presented my plan several times. Simply, it is raise taxes to the Clinton rates and cut discretionary spending by 30%.
Your analogy: “I already explained the part about giving up eating to pay a debt.” is exactly where we will be if and when interest rates go up. When they do, it will begin to impinge on our ability to borrow, adding oil to our already slippery slope of borrowing more to spend even more.
s
The CBO analysis was deficient in many ways, Sammy. Much of it was planned and some politically motivated. But, that’s what we voted for????!!!?? Didn’t we?
Happy to see you joining the discusssion.
Bruce,I believe we all should pay taxes. 47% exempted from paying income taxes is too high. I do not believe in the class warfare arguments.
CBO like CRS answers the questions they are asked by members of Congress. And to a large extent that is true of GAO. You can’t always, or maybe ever, assume the answers are not largely controlled by the questions.
“I agree that Ryan used CBO to add some political credibility to his plan. It’s what Pols do, don’cha know?”
Lying pols. It wasn’t part of the original model.
CoRev think!!! If you exempt capital gains, interest and dividends from taxation what happens to the tax burden on the top 0.001%? Do you even read the posts before weighing in?
“Do you not perceive there to be a problem with $98 of every $100 dollars of revenue required for mandatory spending?”
Fuck yeah. I see a problem when Ryan is arguing that that fact is a reason to cut tax on capital to zero and tax on top wage income to 25%. Are you even trying to engage here?
Simple plan? Reagan era rates. Failing that Clinton era rates.
Bruce–CBO’s studies are directed specifically by the member of Congress who asks for them. So, Ryan had no obligation to ask for anything except a report tailored to his argument. Result–Doesn’t say a whole lot except what Ryan wanted it to say.NancyO
If I wasn’t clear, sorry: it’s objectionable for Ryan to plan tax cuts, tell the CBO to assume that revenues will not decline as a consequence of these cuts, and then use the resultant deficit calculations as if they have any basis in reality. He could plan to cut income taxe rates by ninety-five percent across the board and balance the budget with the same assumption. Regarding my reference to “games” with budget numbers, I was referring to your 98 of 100 dollars statement.
Specifically however the muni tax exemption is a disguised subsidy to the cities and states. It lets them borrow at a lower interest rate than commercial borrowers. To take an example lets look at the vanguard long term investment grade which is at 5.6% yield and the long term tax exempt at 4.19 (tonights quotes). While the rate is somewhat higher for the munis than an indicated 3.65 if the peak tax rate is used, its still a subsidy for the cities of 14k on each million of bonds issued. If you do away with the exemption then the cities will have to pay the long term investment grade rate to borrow. Now you could do the buy america bond route, where the feds just pay the cities and states the difference, but that does not help the federal budget one bit, just moves money around.
Bruce, Your plan is a start. What about spending?
Are you suggesting that the ~25% increase in the past four years is absolutely needed?
Bruce, I will repeat: I do not believe the class warfare rhetoric. Many here do not believe entitilements are a problem, or do not understand how they become a growing problem that needs to be addressed.
It took a severe recession with its reduced revenues to set the table and make a looming fiscal problem obvious. Some have predicted this result for many decades. iIt has now reached near crisis proportions.
Ryan has an approach to attack this near crisis, but all we get is rant, emotions, and talking points. That’s sad.
PJR, OK thanks for the clarification. Ryan’s plan proposes tax rate changes, yes. Their impacts on revenue was not scored by CBO. So, you are just providing an opinion, just as Ryan.
As to my statement, 98 of 100 dollars (of revenues goes to/required for mandatory spending) is far from a game but simple math results.
Thanks Lyle, eloquently and simply explained.
Lying pols??? That’s more than a little redundant.
Great! Then taxing capital gains like regular income should double or triple that!
Why should capital gains be privileged over regular income? There is no evidence that treating it differently for tax purposes will harm the economy.
In fact, the CBO report on Ryan’s proposal made very clear that the number reported as results were largely determined by the limits place on the analysis by Ryan. The text of the report is pretty clear in indicating that the numbers offered by the report are not reflective of reality.
CBO announced today that the deficit is expected to be $1.48T up from their previous baseline estimate of $1.07T. CBO changed the estimate due to extension of the Bush tax cuts. It might be an indication of CBO hands being tied by the requirement to follow existing law.
Why do I bring this up on this thread? Because Bruce made claims re: CBO’s estimates (baseline and Ryan’s Road Map) in the context of CBO’s limiting processes on legislation versus the more flexible and hopefully reality-based approach for a “Plan”.
From Ryan’s Road Map, as quoted by Bruce, “Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.” So Lyle picks up on the comment from Nancy and focuses on munis. but ejects the benefit to the holder of the bond. It is so much easier to deflect attention from the fact that Ryan’s plan faiils to tax the forms of income that are primarily enjoyed by the wealthiest Americans. The top marginal rate is insignificant if most of one’s income is excluded from any form of taxation.
CoRev
no. it’s defense and interest that will swallow up all those tax dollars. social security, as you know, has its own funding. medicare should have its own funding.
there is no reason we cannot continue to pay for what we need.
btw 14 trillion can be written without all those zeros. and it is approximately the same as gdp
so it’s a little like owing a hundred thousand on your house when you make a hundred thousand a year. except that instead of a thirty year mortgage, the government has a “mortgage” it never has to pay the principle on. doesn’t mean it can’t get too high. does mean your hysteria needs to be better focused, and maybe not so dishonest with the numbers.
Dale, you totally misunderstand the budget issue, and your little analogy should read: You have a monthly income of $1,000. Out of it your house payment equals $900 and interest on your credit cards is $80. We now have spent $980 on mandatories of your total $1,000 monthly income (revenues).
That leaves you $20 to pay for food, clothing, heat, fuel, car payments, and entertainment which typically costs $330 per month. So you spend that $20 and then put $310 on your credit card.
Next month inflation adds 2.5% to your expenses and your interest payments is higher because you spent the $20 monthly cushion which required you to put another $325 on your credit cards causing your interest payment to go up.
In the following month you reach the ceiling on your credit card (debt ceiling.)
You have NO LEEWAY in your monthly budget. It is already taken up compleley with mandatory requirements, and you are exceeding that amount by another 35-40%.
It’s not a simple. It’s definitely not: ” …a little like owing a hundred thousand on your house when you make a hundred thousand a year.“
How does the holder of the bond benefit if the interest rate is lower? Its basically a wash for the holder of the bond, get higher interest and pay taxes or get lower interest and pay no taxes. Unless you want to say that disguised subsidies are bad, and lets just raise local taxes (no longer deductable) to pay the new higher interest rates.
Lyle,
Try paying attention to the details. The talk was not about munis. You picked up on one brief comment from Nancy which added munis to the available nontaxable types of income available. You ignored the tax free character of the investment and totally ignored the severak forms of income sequestered from taxation by the Ryan Road Map, which the post was all about. You’re not trying to have an honest discussion. You’re trying to deflect attention away from the central point of the post. That point beiing that the very wealthy get their income from forms of investments that Ryan doesn’t think should be taxed. I suppose that you would agree that only fools who work for their income should supprt their government. Those with “unearned” (an interesting choice of terms) income should be free from taxation.
Jack, you are so steeped in the “class warfare” argument you missed the first phrase: “Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.”
You are so angry that you completely ignore the benefits to the many, many tens of millions of US small savers of not having to pay taxes on the interest. Furthermore, you ignore the benefits to the many millions of middle class asset holders (houses and land, etc) who would be helped by removing capital gains taxes when they are sold. Finally, you miss ignore the benefit of the many, many millions of lower and middle income investors who could save some of their gained investment profits now lost to captial gains taxes.
You (and the rest of the liberal commenters here who believe as you do) did all of that to make a point that a few rich folks might also be helped. Misinformation and anger are rampant on the left, but the real problem is denial over the looming fiscal crisis which Ryan’s Plan is attempting to solve.
The separation from that looming reality is sad. Cognitive dissonance? Probably.
Jack, you are so steeped in the “class warfare” argument you missed the first phrase: “Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.” You by saying this: “…Ryan’s plan faiils to tax the forms of income that are primarily enjoyed by the wealthiest Americans.” also completely misunderstand the amounts of saving and investment that is being done by other than the rich.
You are so angry that you completely ignore the benefits to the many, many tens of millions of US small savers of not having to pay taxes on interest from their savings. Furthermore, you ignore the benefits to the many millions of middle class asset holders (houses and land, etc) who would be helped by removing capital gains taxes when they are sold. Finally, you ignore the benefit of the many, many millions of lower and middle income investors who could save some of their gained investment profits now lost to capital gains taxes.
You (and the rest of the liberal commenters here who believe as you do) did all of that to make a point that a few rich folks might also be helped. Misinformation and anger are rampant on the left, but the real problem is denial over the looming fiscal crisis, which Ryan’s Plan is attempting to solve. It’s so much easier to sit on the side and throw stones targeted at the rich.
The separation from that looming reality is sad. Cognitive dissonance? Probably.
Jack, you are so steeped in the “class warfare” argument you missed the first phrase: “Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.” You by saying this: “…Ryan’s plan faiils to tax the forms of income that are primarily enjoyed by the wealthiest Americans.” also completely misunderstand the amounts of saving and investment that is being done by other than the rich.
You are so angry that you completely ignore the benefits to the many, many tens of millions of US small savers of not having to pay taxes on interest from their savings. Furthermore, you ignore the benefits to the many millions of middle class asset holders (houses and land, etc) who would be helped by removing capital gains taxes when they are sold. Finally, you ignore the benefit of the many, many millions of lower and middle income investors who could save some of their gained investment profits now lost to capital gains taxes.
You (and the rest of the liberal commenters here who believe as you do) did all of that to make a point that a few rich folks might also be helped. Misinformation and anger are rampant on the left, but the real problem is denial over the looming fiscal crisis, which Ryan’s Plan is attempting to solve. It’s so much easier to sit on the side and throw stones targeted at the rich.
The separation from that looming reality is sad. Cognitive dissonance? Probably.
CoRev,
As expected you give us another long winded reply that is mostly deceptive BS about how the public in general will benefit from tax policy which in fact benefits the wealthiest Americans by a wide margin. And if you need that assertion documented with specific references I suggest that you start doing your own homework. Though, in fact, I think you know it very well, but prefer to peddle the BS you do so well.
This is totally unfair for those who are getting the same tax scheme but with lower income. I think that the goverment should try to fix their new tax paying scheme depending on the status and income of the person. This goes to show that the rich go richer and the poor go poorer.
Yep, that’s what CoRev is all right. Completely dishonest in how he presents himself. He does it whenever writing about climate change, for instance. In one sentence he says he is not a pure denier but an honest skeptic. But then the overwhelming majority of his arguments are denails and the links he provides to support his claims come from denier sites like Watts Up With That instead of citing honest skeptics.
In CoRev’s world a thousand dollars means the same thing to someone earning minimum wage as it does to a billionaire. Also, in this strange alternate reality that has nothing in common with the real world, a very significant portion of the population has enough money in taxable investments that Ryan’s gift to the very wealthy would make a significant difference in their lives. This, of course, is false. But in RepublicanLand that doesn’t matter.