30
   

It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!!

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 05:31 pm
@McGentrix,
No, I'm talking about Ryan's 2010 'RoadMap to Prosperity.' Here's the text from his own website:

http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/desclegtext.htm


Quote:

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.


He later clarified in interviews that, yes, he intended for there to be ZERO income tax paid on interest, capital gains, or dividends. And, as that's 100% of Romney's yearly income - at least, in the last tax return that he partially made available - Romney would have paid zero tax under Ryan's plan.

Quote:
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.


The Huffpost did indeed contain this information. If you had bothered to click on the link in the piece - found in this sentence -

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


- you would have been taken to Ryan's own website and seen for yourself. Easy as pie. And yes, this will be a problem for team Romney/Ryan. It reinforces many of the negative stereotypes that Romney should have looked to avoid instead.

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.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 06:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.


Yes, I understand that. Unlike you though, I do not believe that it is right to double tax the same income. Investing your income (interest and dividends) should not incur additional taxation. I have never believed that was fair. Sales tax is separate issue not addressed in the Ryan plan. Purchasing with your income is a choice you make. No one forces you to purchase anything and therefore it is a voluntary tax.

Investments put your money to work. Interest is the reward for allowing your money to be used by others while you are allowed the illusion of actually owning it. Should the wealthy people of America decide to start using the old "under the mattress" bank what do you think would happen to the economy?

I think Capital gains should be taxed, but not interest in savings. That is a double tax. Capital gains is not as you are choosing to sell an asset. It's a voluntary tax. Death tax should be zero. Inheritance should be tax free dammit.

Quote:
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.


You probably have because it interests you. I have no doubt that you know more about it then I do and I do not pretend to be an expert on taxation. But I will not let that stop me from arguing about it and expressing my opinion.

It's not a surprise. You inflected future tense on something that is unproven and declared it as fact. Razz
engineer
 
  9  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 06:57 pm
@McGentrix,
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.)
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 09:42 pm
I was just reading that Paul Ryan, during the Bush presidency, voted for all the major bills that created the deficit in the first place.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 10:00 pm
@McGentrix,
So a dollar should only be taxed the first time it is spent or earned?
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 05:41 am
Donald Trump has once again proven that he is the most amazing and brilliant man in the US. Months ago, he essentially said Paul Ryan's budget proposal is terrible and it could kill the Republican party. Today, he supports Mitt Romney selecting Ryan as his running mate.

I've said it before and it's still true. It doesn't matter what Donald Trump says. He's a liar and an idiot. He's just playing his part. Clearly, he is the epitome of Republican capitalism (except he also used to be a Democrat when he felt that suited him).
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 06:42 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

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.



Quote:
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.


You are right here. Interest should be taxed as income. I am not using the correct terms that I want to here and I am lazy in my typing.

Quote:
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.)


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.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 06:43 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

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


The Ryan plan for 2012 does not include the zero deductions anymore.

http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 06:47 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
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.

You must be pretty wealthy, then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

Quote:
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.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 07:39 am
Paul Ryan Budget Forces Some Republican Candidates Into Awkward Position

Quote:
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.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 08:10 am
CBO Shows Ryan Budget Would Set Nation on Path to End Most of Government Other Than Social Security, Health Care, and Defense By 2050

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 08:17 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

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?

Perhaps glee over your opponent's ineptitude cause one's hair to go gray.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 08:25 am
@engineer,
I agree with everything you said except the argument for taxes on the basis of how much "hurt" it represents to the taxed. I don't think taxes should be based on how much it would hurt the taxed but how much of a legitimate claim that the society has to the individual's money.

Taxes are a property rights argument, and just as we do not accept theft on the basis of someone being rich it is not a good argument for taxation. An individual's right to their property should not be abridged on such a feckless basis as "I think he won't miss it" and doing so does nothing to establish society's entitlement to taking it from the individual.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 08:30 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
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.


Buy why do you think so? Upon what basis are your children entitled to your money, tax-free?

Let me start your argument for you. They are entitled to the money because you wish to give it to them, and it's yours to give. But why are they entitled to it tax-free? Nearly every other form of monetary exchange is taxed.

Why should inheritance not be taxed when gifts are?
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 08:33 am
@Robert Gentel,
Correct me if I'm seeing this wrong...but...perhaps because the money was already taxed once when earned (by the parent of gift-giver)...and then on the interest if the money or in the bank or dividends earned if it was invested when reported on tax return?
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 08:40 am
@Ragman,
But it's not axiomatic that double taxation is wrong. He seems to think so but hasn't thought it through very well. Dollars circulate and get taxed many times, it's obviously to the individual's benefit to minimize taxation but it's not a moral wrong to tax a dollar twice in the course of its life and he hasn't established that it is, he's merely written about it as if it's unethical and even extraordinary, when it's perfectly ordinary.

My income is taxed. When I spend a dollar of it at Walmart it is taxed again. If they report my dollar as a profit it is taxed again, but if they give it to someone else they likely will have to pay taxes on it (e.g. if they use it for payroll some goes to income tax again). And so it goes. Dollars are taxed at many transactional stages.

Now it makes perfect sense for us to avoid as much taxation as possible, but "double taxation" is not an axiomatic wrong nor is it extraordinary. It's perfectly pedestrian.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 08:41 am
It seems to me going by Paul Ryan's record, he was for spending when Bush was in office and then quickly became "a fiscal hawk" after Obama came into office. All of the sudden it was bad policy to agree to raise the debt ceiling when he a lot of other republicans voted for five times under Bush to raise the debt ceiling. But to give credit where it is due, he has remained consistent on social "moral" bills.

Paul Ryan’s voting record: Big-spending conservatism

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 08:44 am
@Robert Gentel,
You would only be double-taxed if you were charged the same tax twice on the same transaction.

People have a really hard time understanding that it's transactions that are taxed, not money itself. Though we could have an interesting conversation regarding the merits of a true wealth tax.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:07 am
@Cycloptichorn,
He's not using the term that way, and colloquially there is ambiguity about it. Either way, he's not established that any form of double taxation, whether it is for the same dollar or same transaction is wrong. But the bottom line that I am getting at is that most arguments about taxes don't cut to the core of taxes. Making the case that the rich aren't "hurt" by an inheritance tax or making the case that inheritance tax is "double taxation" doesn't establish whether or not it is right or wrong but merely axiomatically assumes that taxes are good (at least till they hurt) or bad (and everyone has the right to endure only one instance of it).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Romney 2012? - Discussion by snood
Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 11:11:54