Paul Ryan's Plan to Tax You More
Rep. Paul Ryan's tax and spending "roadmap" is a fascinating critter: conservatives all praise it to the skies but none of them want to actually commit to supporting it. The reason for their hesitation is obvious: Ryan's plan would cut spending dramatically, and supporting it would mean having to explain what, exactly, they'd cut. That would be electoral suicide and they know it. They much prefer their usual game of loudly denouncing "spending" without ever having to say what spending they're actually opposed to.
However, their reason for supporting Ryan's plan is also obvious: it would cut taxes on the rich dramatically, and there's nothing conservatives like better than cutting the tax bills of America's wealthy. But how much would it cut taxes on the rich? Citizens for Tax Justice has run the numbers and the answer is: a lot. The very richest of the rich would see their tax bills go down by an average of over $200,000, a whopping 15% of their income. Ka-ching! To make up for that, everyone with an income under $100,000 would have their taxes increased by about $2,000 per year.
It's a sweet deal for the rich. But even with all the tax increases on the middle class, Ryan's plan still raises less revenue than today's tax code. "It’s difficult to design a tax plan that will lose $2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more," says CTJ acerbically. "But Congressman Ryan has met that daunting challenge." Details are in the table below, where you can find out how much more you'd have to pay under Ryan's plan. Enjoy.
Comments
Citizen's for Tax Justice,a
Citizen's for Tax Justice,a self described liberal organization, 'ran the numbers' and guess what they found? Really Kevin? What sewer do you live in that you just throw a continuous stream of shit across the web? Do you get satisfaction from it or you just like to rouse the base?
These aren't opinions or
These aren't opinions or interpretations, you dipshit, they're facts. They cite their sources and methods and these are the results. You're going to need something better than an argument ad hominem.
Well, if you eliminate
Well, if you eliminate capital gains, dividend, corporate, and estate taxes, and then replace (some of) the lost revenue with a sales tax, what do you think is going to happen? CTJ's numbers are exactly what you'd expect if you know anything about how a tax system works.
It's a half assed- analysis
It's a half assed- analysis with a lot of assumptions skewed towards making it look like he is advocating tax cuts for the rich. But the REAL irony is who's the party of 'no' now? Any proposal by Republicans is deemed evil. If you're going to toss overboard every proposal they make without serious consideration and analysis then your little mud throwing posts are just as bad as what you accuse the other side of doing.
There's no value to your snide quips except inciting your base. Always throwing red meat to your yellow dogs. You want to have a debate about taxation, I'd love to take that on. But I warn you, you won' t be able to win on standard Progressive cliches.
"If you're going to toss
"If you're going to toss overboard every proposal they make without serious consideration and analysis"
What analysis would you recommend? There was an attempt at analysis and you throw it away as liberal propaganda. Do you disagree that those with a lower income will end up paying more in taxes than those with a high income, under the proposed plan?
The hyphen in the title of
The hyphen in the title of your comment is placed incorrectly. It should read:
"It's a half-assed analysis."
FTFY
Free-market Grammar
Misplaced hyphens are the least one can expect from an educational system under Republican-proposed starvation.
The only thing half-assed about it
Is that it all goes half way.
The Ryan Roadmap eliminates all taxes on dividends and capital gains, and those costs aren't even included in the table.
This analysis gets you someway to the real story which is that the top 1% or maybe the top 0.5% would pay no taxes at all. Hedge fund billionaires? No tax. CEOs whose compensation is overwhelmingly in the form of stock options and grants? Near as I can see, no tax on sale, whether or not there were price gains. Steve Jobs? A guy who is paid $1 a year salary? Now that any dividends and gains from his Apple holdings and any other investments are tax free, he could probably claim some refundable tax credits and get cash back.
Not only does this table understate the equity issues that would have Pete G Peterson earn his billions entirely tax free, it doesn't attempt to score the tax games that will occur going forward. In the past CEOs and Wall Street traders liked to get their compensation in cash, rather in stock grants that might come with restrictions. Under the Roadmap all the incentives are to move compensation the other direction. It would seem to me that any private sector individual whose total compensation was in six figures could find some way to restructure his compensation package so that it all came in the form of returns on capital.
I am not any kind of lawyer but it would seem to be child's play to take any professional partnership like a physicians group or a law firm and incorporate it and then and turn around and award partners and junior partners with shares that have high dividend levels. You could give the partners A level voting shares and the juniors B level non-voting and still keep the same control structure.
You could probably work up a similar deal within any corporation, establish a new stock class that either vests right away or has a high dividend level. And it seems that how far you want to drive that structure down the executive ladder is limited only by your audacity.
In the past I have pointed out that the end-point of all existing Right wing tax proposals is no tax on capital in any form at all. In this case you could just rename the Road Map the Tax Lawyer and Compensation Consultant Full Employment Act of 2010.
Ryans roadmap
is a tax on work, not wealth. A natural solution to this problem is to fix the tax code so that nonwage income is taxed at the same rate as the corresponding amount of wages and salaries. That would immediately get rid of upper income people attempting to reclassify the form of income they get, since the tax rate would be identical regardless of the source of the income. Now that would be a fair tax. Hell, even a flat tax of 20% (not that I advocate this) on all forms of income would be an improvement over Paul Ryan's roadmap to ruin.
So basically, you're trying
So basically, you're trying to claim that math has a liberal bias? REALLY?
Uh yes REALLY. I mean does
Uh yes REALLY. I mean does that really require an answer? It depends on how you bend the curve. Kind of like how OBama bends the curve to lower projected deficits like reducing medicare by 20% ( never going to happen) or projecting out the Alternative Minimum Tax to lower income levels ($228 Million of the 'stimulus' package was putting on a two year 'patch'- saved Congress the pain of having to do it again this year. It always gets 'patched'). The point is these proposals are always subject to interpretation. My contention with Kevin is that he in dishonest. He'll overlook the negatives of Progressive proposals but snit at any little thread put forth by Republicans. He's as unfair, dishonest and rapidly partisan as Fair and Balanced FOX NEWS.
SMART FEAR JOURNALISM! Ya right as long as favors Progressives. Which is another way of saying it is intellectually dishonest.
lol
That comment made me chuckle! 1+1, the new liberal agenda! It's all adding up now! muwahahaaa!
Basically it says a VAT would
Basically it says an 8.5% VAT would be a huge burden on most households. No surprise.
A family with an income of about 40k now pays a 15% rate. Under Ryan they would pay 10%, but now a VAT of 8.5%. Assuming they spend everything they make (not unreasonable at that income level) , that works out to almost a tax rate of 18.5%. Their taxes would go up.
It says VAT, but
the burden of a true VAT would be more evenly distributed, wouldn't it? Ryan's proposal just sounds like a sales tax.
Why not just eliminate all taxes for the rich?
And let everybody else pay taxes. That's the Ryan/Republican goal, so why wast time with these intermediate proposals?
Make it like the Good Old Days where the peasants were taxed by the lord of the manor. That worked pretty well for 700 years or so. It only makes sense that wealth be redistributed upwards into the coffers of our betters.
Oh, What the Hell...
In the spirit of the age, let's really stick it to the poor. Everyone earning less than $35,000 a year goes to work for the state, which can then rent them out to the rich when they aren't picking up the garbage in gated communities. This way we can rip away what's left of the facade of equality and finish the full-bore transfer of wealth to the wealthy. After all, if those on the bottom can't figure out how to game the system and turn a buck, they deserve to be used by it.
For a bunch of people who hate Darwin, the right sure does love the social implications of his theory.
Always this has been so, and Forever will be...
This is what is true:
Above All are The Wealthy. The Weathy own the Government. The Government through its Laws directs (owns) The People. If even a little fortunate, The People can only own their Souls and Minds even while they have no choice but to surrender their Bodies, Work and Purses to The Government and The Wealthy. Freedom is to own your Soul and Mind in spite of all other Slavery, and in doing so You mock all Others.
If you want to accelerate the
If you want to accelerate the accumulation of wealth into fewer hands in America, then you'll love the Ryan plan.
I cannot wait 'til 2012, when
I cannot wait 'til 2012, when this prissy Nancy-boy gets his ass handed to him by Tammy Baldwin in the open race for Bucks owner Herb Kohl's Senate seat.
Beaten, by a lesbian... Such a fate a Republican will never live down.
&, yes, it could & should happen. Tammy will play just better enough in the Northwoods/Out-state to take it. Those Yooper types -- not strictly speaking, but much in common with our neighbours to the north -- don't cotton to anything fancy, & Ryan is certainly that. Plus, they elected a gay Republican for years, Steve Gunderson.
2012 will be good times.
I dunno about Ryan, but your
I dunno about Ryan, but your post is the one expressing lots of homophobia.
Hardly. To call someone
Hardly. To call someone fancy, while it can mean "he has seen one up-close", is not necessarily to call him gay. It just means he's a white-collar schmuck who might play the role, for a campaign, as gun-season deer-hunter & fixer of his own car, but in reality is a city-boy who gets someone else to do the manual labour.
& playing up that Baldwin, an out lesbian, would defeat him is just evocative of the even greater humiliation of the Party's great hope losing to a liberal Dem. A liberal Dem who exemplifies the antithesis of the moral jihad the Right has waged since the days of Reagan & the "Caddy-driving welfare-queens" & "AIDS is a gay disease, a scourge from the Lord to avenge their evil sodomite ways". But an antithesis not just in being opposite what the Right espouses, but being high-functioning, an asset to society, a good person.
Egads! The horror.
Also, I just want my state's election to be Ground Zero for political coverage in '12, & a Randroid v. Lesbian race would achieve that.
Ryan's going with the
Ryan's going with the crackpot national sales tax?
That reduces the buying power of savings by a nice chunk. There goes the retiree vote.
The real story isn't in the
The real story isn't in the column Kevin highlighted; the real story is in the three columns to the left of it. The cited tax burdens almost uniformly fall, except for a proposed VAT. But Ryan isn't the only enthusiast for a VAT. Bookmark this item as a handy reference once the pro-VAT talking points start to spew forth.
Will any of these hard facts
Will any of these hard facts matter?
During the period before the Bush tax cuts lots of such tables were available all over the place. But end result was exactly what the Republicans wanted. So will it be in this case.
This is essentially feudalism
This is essentially feudalism reborn. Welcome to the Middle Ages, folks, courtesy of the Republican Party.
The Republicans aren't
The Republicans aren't against the redistribution of wealth. They just want the wealth to be redistributed AWAY FROM THE POOR and TO THE RICH.
Okay....
So, yeah, how the hell does this break down? I have no problem repealing the capital gains tax - that helps all savers. What's wrong with a VAT? People already consume too much at all levels, so that's fine with me too.
The real cuts need to come from pensions and entitlements at local levels - I have no problem with gov workers getting a decent pension but the current situation is totally unsustainable. Democrats need to rebel against entitlements for once or the Republicans will WIN - Guaranteed!
Man I have a bridge to sell you
"I have no problem repealing the capital gains tax - that helps all savers."
Dude Hedge Fund Billionaires aren't 'savers'. Fortune 500 CEOS whose compensation largely comes to various forms of stock grants and options aren't 'savers'. Multi-millionaires who buy multiple houses, stock them with expensive art and ultimately see them at a gain aren't 'savers'.
Private equity firm owners who acquire companies, take them private, restructure them by selling off assets, and then relaunch them via an IPO aren't 'savers'. Trust Fund Baby's who cruise through their whole lives on returns from a fund established by their billionaire grandfather aren't 'savers'.
A combination of the repeal of the estate tax and of the capital gains tax and tax on dividends means that all inherited wealth remains tax free forever. I don't have any real issue with Bill Gates or the founders of Google or their kids, but I am not see why I should give Bill's great-grandkids a permanent out from paying taxes.
The issue is not really the guy getting a $200,000 tax break on a seven figure income, it is on everyone with a net worth in the 8, 9 and 10 digit range getting a permanent exemption on just about everything they or their descendants will ever own.
The whole thing is mind-blowing. The very rich would even need to mess around with foundations and various kinds of trusts. Want to build the greatest art collection since J.Paul Getty and keep in the family forever with not tax implications? Do it. Want to do a Ted Turner and buy up half a western state and not have to worry about working with a Land Trust to conserve it? Just put up a fence, some no trespassing signs and some armed guards and go for it!
But oh yeah Ronchy will save 15% in taxes on that $8000 gain on your $500,000 portfolio. Just don't spend that $1200 all in one place. So that's all fair. Just us 'savers'.
stock grants arent tax free
when someone is given a stock grant in leu of income, they pay income tax on the amount of the grant. generally in deferred grants you also pay income tax on the capital gains until fully vested . its just the way it works. to say CEOs only pay cap gains tax is just wrong
I'd like to see a study on
I'd like to see a study on how much sales tax the average minimum wage worker would actually pay.
I concede that a VAT / National Sales Tax is somewhat regressive, but the reality is that the wealthy spend more than the poor. Thus, they would pay more sales tax. If you exclude food, shelter, clothing and medical care from the tax, and include securities, you effectively provide a substantial exemption for the poor and increase the tax base.
There are also some benefits to a national sales tax including reduced consumption and efficiency of collection. If you care about the environment reduced consumption is of obvious benefit. If you've ever been amazed by how few corporations actually pay tax taxes, then point of sale collection should appeal to you.
The real poison is that people continue to cling to the idea that our "progressive" tax system benefits anyone except the few who are able to manipulate it to their very great advantage.
" If you exclude food,
" If you exclude food, shelter, clothing and medical care from the tax, and include securities, "
Then you are no longer describing the Ryan plan. If you exclude that many items from the VAT, then you have to raise the rate on other items that much more. How much do you want to impoverish the middle class?
The central conservative thesis is that accumulating wealth in the upper classes will result in greater economic growth. The Bush tax cuts accompanied by the dismal economic growth of the last decade proves that this is nonsense.
The problem with sales tax
The problem with sales tax proposals is that the poor and lower middle class have very little disposable income, meaning that they spend almost their entire income for bare necessities and basic goods. Meanwhile the upper middle class and the very wealthy spend a lower proportion of their total income and throw the rest into savings or capital gains (investments). So whose bearing the burden of the tax in terms of proportion of income, with a sales tax-based "reform"?
This is stuff our founding fathers figured out long before. Thomas Paine, heck, it's argued that the very idea of progressive taxation was birthed by Adam Smith.
... idea ... by Adam Smith.
It was known in ancient times but in those days the Sword had more of the Power of Enforcement of Reason.
From My Ears and For Everyone's Information:
For the past thirty or so years Your Province called California has relied almost totally on sales taxes to support the activities of the Government there. When people of that place stopped going to the market to "shop" the Government had less and less revenue to pay its minions, repair the roads and bridges and pay for the pensions of Its retirees. The result of this is a catastrophe which occurred simply because the "economy" became bad. It will be worse in future and it will be the same in most other Provinces.
We prefer to refer to them as...
fiefdoms...though minions is an acceptable phrase.
We...
Thank you for acknowledging me, Sir. Coincidentally, I have recently begun to make good and constant use of Dictionary.com while I read and find it helps me to understand all the interesting new words I encounter here in this wonderous new place.
Actually, as a percentage of
Actually, as a percentage of income, average income workers spend far more than high income workers do.
Ah-ha! But the revenue LOSS
Ah-ha! But the revenue LOSS is NEGATIVE - which means the GAIN is POSITIVE!
This will work if you force people to spend their money
The primary flaw with this system is that it allows for massive accumulation of wealth, as many have pointed out here. The solution is not to say that a VAT system is unfair, the solution should be to encourage people to spend their money rather than horde it.
The GOP's worst enemy, but the best friend of this plan would be a massive tax on gifts and inheritances. If you require the people who earn the money to spend the money then it would keep the system functioning properly. If the current system worked this way I think it would result in much more efficient resource allocation.
No one ever brings up the
No one ever brings up the fact that for the last eight(30) years we've had disastrous Republican policies, and we have the proof in just about everything economic, foreign, and military these days. I think the republicans should be shown the door and laughed at with no credibility on any topic. Crap on this country, and bye bye for 10-12 yrs, unfortunately the loud microphone tricks all.
Mr. Ryan went to Miami on Social Security
And now he and Pete Peterson, Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad want to cut Social Security benefits to payfor these tax cuts for the rich and "eliminate the deficit." When Ryan's father died, his family collected Social Security survivor's benefits, which paid his way to Miami of Ohio University. He is a hypocrite at the level of Palin, who used to travel to Canada for free healthcare, and now fights the concept for everyone else.
bingo with your analysis in
bingo with your analysis in regards to buying up western states. in my county in colorado a huge tax break/relief is given to land owners that grow any agriculture on their land. they don't even need to sell what is grown. pitkin county colorado has one of the highest income/wealth per capital counties. the .50% have bought up hundreds of acres only to grow an acre of hay or 50 trees and don't have to pay any property taxes. we are talking about 35M $ houses/ranches. it is just amazing how these very entitled people get away with loopholes. cause they are the underwriters to the whole plan to protect their wealth. i know the founder of Texas Pacific Group TPG, bought 2500 acres and house/resort up on top of a mountain. this is like building a moat around the castle for protection. this is what the uber- rich are doing all over the west. but you have never seen such low hanging looking down heads on all these utter rich men and woman. they aren't happy at all.
One thing I've never
One thing I've never understood is: why do we ALWAYS see the combination of "small government conservatism" with "shaft the non-rich conservatism?"
Now, Paul Ryan wants to shrink government's role over the long term. Fair enough. It's not my cup of tea, but I understand people with different world views can, in good faith, advocate slashing this or that program and reducing government's size and scope.
But why is that nearly always AUTOMATICALLY combined with a plan to make the tax code much more regressive? The two need not be combined, right? Why couldn't somebody like Ryan, say, advocate the various conservative wish list items in terms of cutting spending (SS privatization, means-testing, voucherizing Medicare, what have you) and also advocate shifting the tax burden toward the wealthy (as opposed to making them even richer, as his tax proposal would do).
You could imagine a space in our political culture that could be occupied by a populist "pro small government, pro fair-for-working-people tax code" position. But such a sweet spot in US politics seems unimaginable. It's just strange, is all.
I do see how any
I do see how any self-interested, rational working-class person could ever support small-govt conservatism, even if that meant a progressive tax code, because they would never be able to afford to retire, get medical care, or send their kids to college without help from the govt no matter how much money they saved in lower taxes. Small govt with progressive taxation still isn't in their economic interest.
So instead you get the total manipulation by corporate interest (via Dick Armey) of the Tea Party and the self-destructive insanity that follows.
The idea that tax cuts will
The idea that tax cuts will fix an economy which is suffering from excessive debt is about as sound as the idea that by going faster, one can get their truck under a low hanging bridge.
When an affluent person gets another dollar, they most likely put it in the stock market. There it teams up with all the other affluent dollars and acquires a completive business, reduces quality, increases prices to the consumer and terminates (now duplicative) jobs. Give the same dollar to a working poor person and it gets spent on food or clothing and thereby supports the entire economy.
We have glorified the almighty buck to the point where those who have far more then they could ever need also have far more glory then they need or deserve.
The Troll's approach would be to institute a maximum wage, nothing crazy, say $12-million/year (all in) and a maximum net worth (example $50-million). This would certainly not solve all our assorted problems but it would do one important thing which we so sorely need. Namely, make a moral statement that we DO NOT choose to live by the "laws of the jungle."
BTW: If Bush-W had not cut taxes on the rich (promising us greater prosperity) today we would (roughly) have a balanced budget. Our interest expense on the national debt roughly equals twice our annual budget deficit.
Ryan is a pretty-boy ho.
Paul Ryan
GODDAMN IT ALL!
This is compared to Obama's PROPOSAL, not our CURRENT tax code.
The wording of your article, and your chart make it look like Ryan's proposal is going to increase taxes on the lower tax brackets, which isn't true... it's just not decreasing their taxes as much as Obama's proposal would.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
