It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!!

TITLE V: SIMPLIFIED INCOME TAX

▫ Revenue Projections. In combination with Title VI below, holds total Federal revenue to no more than 19.0 percent of gross domestic product [GDP] for the foreseeable future.

▫ Offers Individual Taxpayers a Choice. Provides individuals the choice of paying income taxes in either of two ways: 1) under a new Simplified Tax, or 2) under the existing tax code.

- Current Code Taxpayers. Those choosing the current code will pay their income taxes with existing tax forms, the current set of exemptions, exclusions, deductions, and credits; but the alternative minimum tax [AMT] is eliminated.

- Individuals Choosing Simplified Tax. The new Simplified Tax broadens the tax base by clearing out nearly all of the existing tax deductions and credits, compresses the tax schedule down to two low rates, and retains a generous standard deduction and personal exemption.

▫ AMT Repeal. Eliminates the alternative minimum tax [AMT] entirely and permanently.

▫ Selection of Simplified Individual Income Tax. Applies the following rules for choice of individual income tax:

- Initial Election The election must be made within 10 years from the time that the Simplified Tax is established. Individuals are not allowed to switch between tax systems on a year-by-year basis.

- Changeover Options. After the initial choice is made, however, individuals are allowed one additional changeover between the two tax systems over the course of a lifetime. Individuals are also allowed to change tax systems when a major life event (death, divorce, marriage) alters their tax filing status.

Applies the Simplified Tax solely to Federal individual income taxes. Does not affect other Federal individual taxes, such as payroll taxes and excise taxes.

▫ Two-Rate Tax Schedule. Creates the following Simplified Tax rates:

- Ten-Percent Rate. A rate of 10 percent applies to adjusted gross income [AGI] (defined below) up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers.

- Twenty-Five Percent Rate. A rate of 25 percent applies to taxable income above $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers. (See Table for a comparison with current tax brackets.)

▫ Adjusted Gross Income, Standard Deductions, and Personal Exemptions. Defines taxable income as equal to earnings minus a standard deduction and personal exemption. The standard deduction is $25,000 for joint tax filers, $12,500 for single filers. The personal exemption is $3,500. The combination is equivalent to a $39,000 exemption for a family of four.

▫ Returns to Savings Tax Exempt. Contains no tax on interest, capital gains, or dividends.

▫ Broader Tax Base. Eliminates, in the Simplified Tax, virtually all of the credits and deductions in the existing tax code, but retains a generous standard deduction amount while lowering tax rates. Retains health care tax credit described above.

But, you said it was a fact that Romney would pay no taxes under the plan and the jokingtonpost does not offer up the facts you promised. Please provide them.

Under Ryan's 2010 proposal, taxes on income derived from capital gains, interest, dividends and inheritance would be eliminated.

You like paying multiple taxes on the money you make?

Now, on to substantive matters:

Quote:

You like paying multiple taxes on the money you make?

Do you guys understand that income and sales taxes are always assessed on transactions? It doesn't seem so. When your company gives you money in exchange for work, you get taxed. When you invest that money - take an action with it, and gain a return on it - you get taxed. When you buy something, you get taxed again. Et cetera.

There is no 'double-taxation.' That's a total myth. Instead, there's a single tax enacted at different transactional points. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't engage in transactions. Simple.

Everyone pays multiple taxes on the money they make and the goods they buy. It happens at all levels of our system. None of it is 'double' and none of it should be gotten rid of - period.

Cycloptichorn

ps - It really amazes me, to no end, how little Republicans I talk with online know about what their own politicians have proposed. As DD pointed out on the last page, this stuff has been common knowledge - and publicly out there - for years. None of it should come as a surprise to any GOP voter. And yet, hardly anyone knows anything about what's in Ryan's budgets and plans.

I would wager that I've read more of the details of the House GOP budget for the last three years than any Republican on this site. Which is kind of crazy.

Yes, I understand that. Unlike you though, I do not believe that it is right to double tax the same income.

I think Capital gains should be taxed, but not interest in savings. That is a double tax.

Death tax should be zero. Inheritance should be tax free dammit.

McGentrix wrote:

Yes, I understand that. Unlike you though, I do not believe that it is right to double tax the same income.

Why do you believe that (both that it is double taxation and that it should be tax exempt)? Investing money is just another form of work. Why does money that you earn with your muscles or brains get the full tax treatment but money that you earn by loaning someone else your money escape taxes completely? It doesn't make sense. It already escapes social security tax, isn't that enough? What is interest but payment for a service you do for someone else (lending them money)? If you work for a living you don't even get to deduct all the work clothes you have to buy or the gas to get to and from work but heaven forbid we tax money made by mailing a check.

McGentrix wrote:

I think Capital gains should be taxed, but not interest in savings. That is a double tax.

It's only a double tax if the principle is taxed as well as the interest. Since only the earnings are taxed it's just like any other form of earning. There is nothing special about earning money on money.

McGentrix wrote:

Death tax should be zero. Inheritance should be tax free dammit.

I understand the gut feeling that "I earned it and I'll give it to whoever I please" but the owner is dead and by taking a cut, the government can charge the living less in taxes. Like all progressive tax systems, this hits those the hardest that can easily afford it. There is a huge exclusion from estate taxes and plenty of loop-holes that allow the wealthy to transfer wealth while they are living to avoid the tax. If after all of that you still died with seven figures of net worth, then paying some to the government is not going to hurt you (plus you are dead.)

No, I'm talking about Ryan's 2010 'RoadMap to Prosperity.' Here's the text from his own website:

My children should be entitled to my stuff without the govt getting involved as should your children be entitled to your stuff without paying taxes on it.

For deaths occurring in 2011, up to $5,000,000 can be passed from an individual upon his or her death without incurring federal estate tax.

Since Paul Ryan was chosen as Mitt Romney’s running mate, Republicans in competitive congressional races have tried to strike a balance between praising the ticket, and emphasizing that they disagree with the fundamental premise of Ryan’s budget.

Almost immediately after the presumptive GOP presidential nominee announced Ryan's candidacy Saturday, Democrats revived an old attack line against the Wisconsin congressman over his budget, introduced in 2010. Opponents' argument that the budget would “end Medicare as we know it" seemed to trickle down to both Republican congressional candidates who voted for the budget, and those who opposed it but didn't want to impair Romney’s presidential bid.

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R), who is in a heated contest with Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, was one of the first to be targeted in a web video released Monday morning by Warren’s campaign. The video tried to tie Brown to the proposed economic policies of both Romney and Ryan, featuring video of the incumbent senator saying “thank God” Ryan's budget proposal would tackle the nation’s crippling debt.

The video doesn't mention that Brown voted against the Ryan budget twice, in 2011 and 2012, a point his campaign sought to clarify without undermining Ryan. “Senator Brown believes Paul Ryan is an impressive individual with innovative ideas on how to tackle the problems of spending and debt,” Colin Reed, a spokesman for Brown, said in an emailed statement. “They’ve had their differences on policy issues."

His staff pointed The Huffington Post to an op-ed the senator penned for Politico in May, “Why I Won’t Back Paul Ryan’s Medicare Plan.” Brown wrote at the time that he did not think changes to Medicare were necessary and expressed his concern for seniors having to take on a disproportionate burden, a position his campaign said he maintains.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) also voted against the Ryan plan this year, a decision his reelection campaign said he hasn’t reconsidered.

Like Brown, Amash authored an op-ed to justify his stance on the budget, writing on local Michigan site MLive that he could not “in good conscience” support it.

As a conservative, I applaud the GOP budget for presenting good ideas about reforming health care costs, simplifying the tax code and changing spending priorities. But beyond the good ideas, the budget accomplishes little now while making lofty promises about what we hope to address in the future.


“He hasn’t changed his view on that,” Amash spokesman Will Adams told The Huffington Post, adding that Amash “has a great relationship with Paul Ryan and considers him one of the brightest minds in politics.”

Amash stated on his Facebook page Sunday that he already endorsed Ron Paul for president and “will not be making any other endorsements for President.”

Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg attracted widespread attention for openly campaigning against the Ryan budget this summer. An ad paid for by the Montana Republican Party and released in July, boasted how Rehberg “refused to support a Republican budget plan that could harm Medicare programs so many of Montana’s seniors rely on."

Following Saturday’s announcement, Rehberg, who is challenging Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), praised Ryan as a “public servant of the highest order,” but mentioned there were “occasions where we haven’t [agreed].”

At the time of his vote against the Ryan budget, Rehberg was more straightforward: “I simply won’t support any plan until I know for a fact that Montana’s seniors will be protected."

A spokesman for Richard Tisei, who is trying to unseat Democratic Rep. John Tierney in Massachusetts, also doubled down on his candidate’s opposition to the Ryan plan Monday.

“Like Simpson-Bowles, Richard said [the Ryan plan] is a good start,” Tisei spokesman Paul Moore told HuffPost. “Richard doesn't agree with certain aspects of it,” adding that the budget may not be as clear and stark as everyone wants.

But when asked if Tisei would have voted for the Ryan budget, Moore was vague. “Richard would have taken a good hard look at it,” he said. “If it was appropriate to vote for it he would have, if it was not appropriate he wouldn't have.”

The list of Republicans seeking to distance themselves from the Ryan budget keeps growing.

Linda McMahon’s campaign said in a statement that the Senate candidate from Connecticut “will never support a budget that cuts Medicare, after her Democratic opponent Rep. Chris Murphy posed the question “Mitt Romney Picks Paul Ryan – Does Linda McMahon?”

Rhode Island congressional hopeful Brendan Doherty lauded Ryan as “articulate, intelligent, and open-minded” but added, “I do not agree with his proposals on Medicare and his opposition to the Simpson-Bowles Plan.”

North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory ducked questions on whether he supported the newly minted vice presidential nominee’s budget proposals, simply stating that he would “support the Romney plan.”

But with Ryan’s name attached to Romney, it is unlikely that Ryan’s budget will not be associated with Romney's plan, or seen as a liability. Democrats already are likening the Ryan budget to steps outlined by Romney, comparing across-the-board tax cuts, including steep ones for the wealthy, at the expense of investments in health care, education, job training, and other domestic programs.

Republicans are now left to determine how to defend that vision, without weakening support among voters who hold a mostly negative view of the proposal.

Looks like the Ryan choice shook old Obama up. Did someone see him recently in a Walgreens buying a bottle of black hair dye?

I wonder why?

This I still disagree with. My children should be entitled to my stuff without the govt getting involved as should your children be entitled to your stuff without paying taxes on it.