The Ryan Budget: Who It Helps and Who It Hurts

[Spiff]

Ryan's political views suck. But I admit I always thought he is cute. I'm a sucker for blue eyes, what else can I say?

 

[maxpowr9]

It will arrive dead on the house floor if only for the gross overstatement of the GOP's war drums.

 

[Kulindahr]

There you go! Your getting it. The way out of a recession when you have high marginal rates, is to reduce them! See, even Jack Kennedy understood that!

When you have high marginal rates, yes. Any time the rates are already below a third, or even two fifths, further reductions have no impact on the economy.

So the proper prescription right now is to raise the rates on the wealthy, including making all categories of income just income. On top of that, a 0.01% tax on all electronic transactions over $1000.

I think that would balance things. Then we slap on a limit on growth of spending, at 2/3 of inflation. Social Security gets excluded, and all SS income goes into SS -- oh, and while we're at it, Congress should pay SS interest equal to the highest being charged on any other loan.

 

[Kulindahr]

I really hate talking politics cause I tend to piss people off most of the time.
Do u realize that "rich" people pay the most in taxes as a group and Hadley use government social services that account for much of the federal and state budgets, and the the group that Hadley pay income taxes use the services the most?
Do you realize Obama has spent almost 5 trillion in 3 + years? His party in the Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years?
Do you realize when Obamacare was passed its cost for the next ten years was 9 hundred BILLION and now its up to 1.6 trillion without even being fully implemented ?
If this is called leadership...well just throw me into the Hunger Games so someone can kill me..because life is going to get real tough if he is reelected..

Do you realize that most of the wealthy pay a lower tax rate than their employees? Do you realize that after taxes the wealthy are even better off compared to the poor than before taxes? Do you realize that under Republican policies, the gap between the rich and poor has invariably widened?

 

[CowboyBob]

Ryan's political views suck. But I admit I always thought he is cute. I'm a sucker for blue eyes, what else can I say?

OMG..... another JayQueer here.

Cute? He looks like Eddie Munster.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Eeek!

You're right!

 

[Kulindahr]

Then how come the economy boomed under Clinton, after the rates were raised?

Yes. And how come Bush reduced taxes . . . and it did nothing?

 

[Kulindahr]

There you go! Your getting it. The way out of a recession when you have high marginal rates, is to reduce them! See, even Jack Kennedy understood that!

Jack Kennedy understood that you keep them high enough to keep paying down the national debt.

 

[hotatlboi]

92% was the marginal rate. Not the nominal rate. And nobody paid it in any event. So, having a tax rate that nobody pays, helps us how?

Nobody pays the actual rates now either.

The rich paid way more tax in the 50s, the effective rate was higher than todays effective rate. That much is obvious.

 

[socalguy]

Hey if YOU really WANT to live in a country where you have to pay higher taxes and live under universal hair care Europe has many nations you can pick from..(= oh and u might find a green job along the way..if you are really dedicated and determined and u look under ever rock..

 

[jackoroe]

Kulindahr, do you see anything funny about Jack's posts? They directly contradict each other.

If nobody paid the 92% during the Eisenhower, there would have been nobody who could have benefited from Kennedy's lowering the taxes to 70%. It's rather like trying to divide by zero.

<chuckle>

One thing you have to hand it to the righties—they're extremely good at propaganda. It takes an astute observer to catch them.

Do you understand what a marginal tax rate is? Nobody ever paid 92% of their income in taxes. That rate was for every dollar you earned over a certain amount. Not the first dollar you earned. There were also many more deductions and shelters than there are now, so even people who were very well to do didn't have to pay that percentage on anything.

An astute observer would understand that.

 

[Benvolio]

Wake up!! The problem is too big to be solved by taxing employers and job creators. A 100% tax on millionaires would only pay for 4 months of Obama spending. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ays-100-percent-tax-millionaires-would-only-/
Over half the eligible voters PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. The Democrat/Obama unwillingness to reduce spending dooms the US economy. It is only a matter of time before our currency is rejected by the world. Then what will we do?
Yeah, yeah, I know what you are thinking. Boo Hoo, Bush spent some money, so we are entitled to spend as much as we want.

 

[SuprSonic]

Those who don't pay federal income tax still pay other taxes. The reason they don't pay federal income tax is because they're too damn poor! Seriously, how much more do you think someone who makes under $20,000/year should pay after their 7% share of FICA and a 5-10% sales tax on everything they buy? Even something like a $100 car registration/wheel tax sticker ends up being .5% or more of their entire income.

I don't think I'd agree that the wealthy use government services less. They certainly derive a greater benefit. They transport their goods in heavy 18-Wheelers on public roads. Let's not forget that heavier vehicles wear out the roads faster. If you've got factories overseas, you benefit from the US military bases keeping the peace around the world so that you can get your products to market safely. If your products are intangible, you've got the court system to enforce your intellectual property rights, while the legal system is very inaccessible to most folks in this country. Having to pay a $2,000 bill for a lawyer would be a big burden for the vast majority of Americans. And let's face it--if you're rich, you can hire lobbyist so that you have greater control of the government.

 

[Kulindahr]

Over half the eligible voters PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

So? Do you really think it's a good idea to hit the poor harder?

Republicans have a hard time seeing reality. Gobs of laws in this country do nothing but punish the poor for being poor. Republicans want to add insult to injury.

Libertarians say taxation is theft. Well, when you're taxing what people need in order to live on, it most definitely is theft. So the Republicans are the party of theft.

Of course the position is hypocritical in the first place: Republicans want the rich to pay almost nothing, but demand that the poor fork over even what they need to live on. Funny how so many Republicans claim to be Christian -- the Bible has some very stark things to say about that sort of thing.

The Democrat/Obama unwillingness to reduce spending dooms the US economy.

Obama is being more of a conservative on the deficit issue than the Republicans. The Republican approach is like that of a father who realizes that the family is spending more than it makes -- so the first thing he does is to tell the wife to quit her job.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary. In reality, they were an experiment to see if cutting the rates would stimulate the economy. It didn't. And the data of decades show that the rate on the super-wealthy can go to as high as two-fifths without hurting economic activity.

And here's the deal: the super-wealthy can afford it. They know they can afford it. But they're not scrambling to help, they're scrambling to keep even more of their frequently unearned income. So one has to ask the question: aren't there any Americans among them? or do they all just hate their country?

 

[Kulindahr]

Those who don't pay federal income tax still pay other taxes. The reason they don't pay federal income tax is because they're too damn poor! Seriously, how much more do you think someone who makes under $20,000/year should pay after their 7% share of FICA and a 5-10% sales tax on everything they buy? Even something like a $100 car registration/wheel tax sticker ends up being .5% or more of their entire income.

I don't think I'd agree that the wealthy use government services less. They certainly derive a greater benefit. They transport their goods in heavy 18-Wheelers on public roads. Let's not forget that heavier vehicles wear out the roads faster. If you've got factories overseas, you benefit from the US military bases keeping the peace around the world so that you can get your products to market safely. If your products are intangible, you've got the court system to enforce your intellectual property rights, while the legal system is very inaccessible to most folks in this country. Having to pay a $2,000 bill for a lawyer would be a big burden for the vast majority of Americans. And let's face it--if you're rich, you can hire lobbyist so that you have greater control of the government.

Don't forget that if your income is over a million a year, a D.C. politician is two hundred times as likely to actually talk to you.

 

[Benvolio]

It is false to say the Bush tax cut did not stimulate the economy. The economy was weak the lat year of Clinton. Then 9/11 and the economy took a quick dip. The Bush tax cuts revived the economy and it was strong until the disaster of November 2006. At this point liberals switch gears and say Busn over stimulated the economy and caused the meltdown in 2007. That also is false. The melt down resulted from Democrat laws requiring banks to loan to poor people as a condition to making good loans. After the Dem take over the Fed then started to raise interest rates,precipitating defaults and the spiral began.

 

[jackoroe]

Those same people wouldn't pay the 70%, either.

Jackaroe, you're busted, buddy.

Tax revenues increased when Kennedy reduced marginal rates. Therefore somebody paid them. What else you got?

 

[jackoroe]

If you're going to start lying, I'm going to have trouble remaining a gentleman.

First of all, the real estate bubble began to grow in 2002, just after 9/11, when they further deregulated the securities market. If I recall, there was a full Republican majority in both houses.

Secondly, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Bush tax cuts did produce some modest job growth, but it was not enough to pay for itself. Put another way, it was directly responsible for dramatic increases in the deficit.

Do I have to go to the CBC website and dig this out?

Doggone it guys, don't you realize that the moment you start lying and twisting the truth, your credibility goes down the drain?

Patently false. Between 2004-2007 tax receipts increased by 785 billion because of the tax cuts. The largest increase in history. Spending was once again the cause of the deficit.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

 

[SuprSonic]

Or for an alternative analysis:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-the-deficit/2012/02/03/gIQABW9fmQ_blog.html

...
In 2001, taxes revenues were 19.5 percent of GDP. In 2002, they fell to 17.6 percent of GDP. In 2003, 16.2 percent of GDP. In 2004, 16.1 percent of GDP. Some of that is the 2001 recession. But at no point in Bush's presidency, and at no point since, have taxes returned to 19 percent of GDP.

Or, to put it slightly differently, if tax cuts actually increased revenues, then it would have been absurd for George W. Bush to propose tax cuts as a way of paying down the surplus.
...

Tax receipts increased, but you can hardly say that it was because of the Bush era tax cuts. People were making money off of the new housing bubble and we had regular economic growth, which ends up giving us inflation. Had the Bush era tax cuts not been passed, tax receipts would have increased even more.

 

[cocksucker4use]

With that crazy motherfucker Santorum and the pathetically out of toutch Romney shooting each other in the foot that isn't in their mouths, along comes Ryan wanting to jerk medicare around for 75 million baby boomers facing retirement with a fuck of a lot less than they used ot have. If the Democrats just keep quiet and don't go outside before election day, these dumb cocksuckers will guarantee a Democratic landslide.

So, taking it to a microeconomic level, if we have financial problems at home, we can either bring in more money or stop spending so much, or both. Our first option is usually not to stop feeding mom and dad and decide they don't need healthcare anymore (although too often it comes to that). Also, we don't tell a significant revenue source to not pay us anymore, reasoning that then they can hire another maid or buy another Lexus and this is somehow going to trickle down and make us better off. One is unreasonalble, if not cruel and the other stupid.