Analysis of Paul Ryans 'Roadmap for America' (Republican budget proposal)

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Deficits, Debt, and Fiscal Responsibility: Radical Priorities in the Ryan Budget "Roadmap"

http://www.cbpp.org/

Executive Summary of actual report

HIGHWAY TO HELL.... Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, recently unveiled what he described as a budget "roadmap," intended to address the budget mess his own party had created during the Bush/Cheney era. Ryan's blueprint immediately became a political hot potato that Republicans liked but were reluctant to hold on to -- the roadmap, after all, would eliminate Social Security and privatize Medicare.

Policy experts have since had a chance to scrutinize Ryan's plan in detail. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained today, the roadmap "calls for radical policy changes that would result in a massive transfer of resources from the broad majority of Americans to the nation's wealthiest individuals."

The Roadmap would give the most affluent households a new round of very large, costly tax cuts by reducing income tax rates on high-income households; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax.

At the same time, the Ryan plan would raise taxes for most middle-income families, privatize a substantial portion of Social Security, eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid, and terminate the Children's Health Insurance Program. The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would erode over time and thus would purchase health insurance that would cover fewer health care services as the years went by.

An analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found that the richest 1% of Americans -- those making more than $633,000 a year -- would find their tax burden cut in half in 2014. The more one makes, the bigger the cut -- millionaires who Republicans have already taken good care of would find their taxes cut even more dramatically, by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

To make up the difference, we'd all have to pay a new consumption tax on goods and services. On the whole, the tax burden would shift dramatically from the wealthy to the middle class.

And best of all, even with new taxes on the middle class, and the massive cuts to Medicare and Social Security, Ryan's roadmap still wouldn't balance the budget for a very long time.

It's a rather breathtaking vision of how the government should operate in the 21st century. The roadmap offers directions to a system that makes it even easier for the very wealthy, even harder on the middle class, and all but eliminates bedrock societal programs. It raises taxes on 90% of the public without managing to close the budget gap, a feat that hardly seems possible.

Remember how radical the Gingrich/Dole agenda seemed after the '94 takeover? This is like that agenda on steroids -- with a crack chaser.

Best of all, don't forget the punch-line: if Republicans reclaim the House majority next year, Paul Ryan will be the chairman of the House Budget Committee, directly responsible for helping write the federal budget.

I can't wait to see just how many congressional Republicans endorse Ryan's roadmap in advance of the midterm elections. It looks bleak for Democrats now, but the radical nature of Ryan's scheme offers Dems a chance to go on the offensive.

This is a more detailed analysis of what appeared to be a ridiculous proposal to begin with. Apparently, according to Ryan, wealth redistribution is evil only if wealth moves down and its a good thing when it moves up.

This is a hugely regressive plan which raises taxes for the poor and cuts them for the rich. There's already been tax cuts for the rich in 2001 & 2003 and now this guy proposes even more?

Good thing this plan won't make it past committee even though Paul Ryan is the ranking Republican on the budget committee.


.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
That guy is awesome. I really want him to be the 2012 candidate. He totally owned Obama at the healthcare summit as well. If we implemented this plan economy would skyrocket overnight.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
So a "progressive" policy group thinks that a plan by Republicans is bad.

What else is new?

Note: The above post does NOTHING to back up its claims. Elimination of capital gains? Sure it helps the "rich" but it also helps everyone else.
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Sounds sweet, then we can move these things to the state level, remove the Federal income tax, move to a small Federal sales tax and allow states to take in the income tax at a level they choose to run their own forms of social security and single payer health care programs.

I also find it funny they say "most the burden is shifted to the middle class" and they bring it up a few times, then say basically call the middle class poor, which is far from true.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Sounds sweet, then we can move these things to the state level, remove the Federal income tax, move to a small Federal sales tax and allow states to take in the income tax at a level they choose to run their own forms of social security and single payer health care programs.

I also find it funny they say "most the burden is shifted to the middle class" and they bring it up a few times, then say basically call the middle class poor, which is far from true.

Word.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,007
46,617
136
So in other words, this guy formed a proposal to continue the last admin's war on the middle class, and it's being offered up as some kind of proof that the GOP has a clue as to what to do now.

Move along. Nothing to see here. *yawn*
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,007
46,617
136
That guy is awesome. I really want him to be the 2012 candidate. He totally owned Obama at the healthcare summit as well.

You must have been watching the extra special FOX version then I suppose... link? Or are you just back in 'up is down, black is white' land again?
Your approval of him actually communicates a very different point in the real world...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'd have no problem with abolishing the capital gains tax for money that has truly been at risk, say for a minimum of two years. I am very much against abolishing the capital gains tax on fake capital gains - stock options, Edwards-style dividends, day trading, bonds or accounts guaranteed by government - where money was either not placed at risk or did not materially help grow our nation. I think this money should be taxed as any other wages.

That said, the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities has zero credibility with me, so their displeasure with Ryan automatically makes him look better to me.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
It's a good start but I don't see any cutting federal heads and pay and retarded pensions.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Oh look, the brookings idiots are at it again. There's a shocker, left wing group doesn't like a republican plan.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
From the (Conservative leaning) Tax Policy Institute:

The Roadmap’s tax provisions would be highly regressive compared with the current tax system. Relative to current law—and assuming that taxpayers choose their preferred tax system—the Roadmap would reduce taxes for most people, but the largest reductions would go to those with the highest incomes. After-tax income would rise by 1.5 percent for households in the bottom quintile (the 20 percent with the lowest incomes) but change little for the next two quintiles and go up just 0.6 percent for the fourth quintile. In sharp contrast, the top quintile would see their after-tax income jump 11 percent. Within that group, the top 1 percent would gain an average of 26 percent and the top 0.1 percent a whopping 36 percent. The share of total taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent would rise from 35 percent to 42 percent, while the share paid by the top 1 percent would fall by nearly half from 25 percent to 13.5 percent.

Taxpayers at the top of the income distribution gain most because they get the bulk of capital income, which the Roadmap would exempt from taxation. The change in average tax rates reflects that situation. While average rates would change little among the bottom 80 percent, they would fall dramatically at the top. For example, the average tax rate for the top 0.1 percent would plummet from 30 percent under current law to just 11 percent under the Roadmap.


Behavioral Responses and Other Sources of Uncertainty

The Roadmap would dramatically and fundamentally change the U.S. tax system. Although all revenue estimates contain some degree of uncertainty, that effect is magnified for large reforms such as the one considered here. We therefore provide only static estimates; we ignore any changes in income, either through a change in actual earnings or through a change in the reporting of income for tax purposes, resulting from the change in tax rates. Below we summarize the reason for this decision and discuss some potential sources of uncertainty in our analysis.

Dynamic versus static estimates. The Tax Policy Center typically incorporates a microdynamic response into its revenue estimates, based on a large economics literature that has examined the change in reported income in response to tax changes. All else equal, we would expect the reduction in marginal tax rates under the Roadmap to increase taxable income. However, other aspects of the reform complicate using estimates based on previous (much smaller) tax changes. The BCT adds a layer of tax that would lower the after-tax value of work and thus at least partially offset any real labor supply response. In addition, the Roadmap’s elimination of exclusions, deductions, and credits would remove another important source of income change. Most important, exempting capital income gives taxpayers a large incentive to reclassify income into these nontaxable forms. The combination of these and other factors make it difficult to quantify the magnitude of the behavioral response. It is likely, however, that behavioral change would lead to lower revenues.

Noncompliance among flow-through businesses. The Roadmap creates large incentives for taxpayers to reclassify wage income as capital income. Small business owners (i.e., sole proprietors and partnerships) would have the greatest opportunity to do that, simply by claiming lower salaries and therefore higher (untaxed) profits. For simplicity, we have assumed that wages would equal 80 percent of net income currently reported by these entities. This assumption likely understates wages for low-profit businesses and overstates wages for high-profit businesses. Actual reported wages would depend importantly on IRS rules and enforcement.
Revenue from the 8.5 percent BCT. Our estimate that the BCT would collect revenue equal to 4.25 percent of GDP relies on three specific assumptions: (i) the tax base includes nearly all private domestic and government consumption; (ii) noncompliance would occur at a 15 percent rate; and (iii) the tax would cause factor incomes to fall, which in turn would reduce revenues by 20 percent. However, the estimate involves substantial uncertainty. Further, adding exemptions for education, health care, or government expenditures would result in lower revenue.



Says pretty much the same outcomes as the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Cutting capital gains is a proven method to spur private investment.
I'm not sure that is totally accurate anymore. Investing in foreign corporations still has the same benefits in tax rates, but helps our economy only a little. Investing in government bonds just moves money around, so cutting capital gains taxes on those (many of which are tax free anyway) doesn't help create any wealth. Day trading does little to fund companies' operations and/or expansion, merely producing or exaggerating highs and lows in value and moving money from one person to another (although granted there is a value in velocity of money as well.) A wealthy lawyer like John Edwards incorporating his law firm and paying himself in dividends doesn't change the value of his services or (most probably) the likelihood of him taking a particular case, but merely reduces his tax liability.

I agree in principle that cutting capital gains rates spur private investment, since the potential reward increases while the potential risk remains unchanged. But I'm not sure that this would have enough affect on our wealth-producing sectors to overcome the net disadvantages of less tax revenue. (Since there will almost certainly be no cut in spending, either debt will increase even faster or other taxes must be raised.)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,397
8,564
126
Because this is the best the Republican party could come up with as a budget proposal.

...

it's a republican's proposal, but it's not the republican proposal. the republican proposal hasn't been written yet.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Hilariously out of touch just based on Medicare alone. Anyone running on a platform of privatizing Medicare loses and loses badly in this day and age with baby boomers beginning to retire. It would be a gift to the Dems if the Repubs ran on that platform.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Wait, did the Tax Policy Institute analysis state that sole proprietors would reclassify income, and claim less as salary and more as profit to avoid taxes? I admit that my knowledge of tax law is not huge, but I could have sworn that a business structered as a sole proprietorship has no division between business income and owner income. In other words, there is no way for a sole proprietor to do what they claim he would do. (to my knowledge)

So, if they are wrong about sole proprietors and income/profit taxes, why should I believe the rest of their analysis?
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
...

it's a republican's proposal, but it's not the republican proposal. the republican proposal hasn't been written yet.

I wonder if it could be legitimately argued whether Paul Ryan's plan genuinely represents a possible Republican "ideal" end game of completely destroying the middle class and concentrating the vast majority of the wealth of the entire country in the hands of both corporations and in very rich individuals, followed by a no-longer-so-gradual erosion of the Constitution?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Paul Ryan is one of the staunch advocates for eliminating Medicare/Medicaid altogether, but why he didn't out and out say that during the health care summit is beyond me.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Paul Ryan is one of the staunch advocates for eliminating Medicare/Medicaid altogether, but why he didn't out and out say that during the health care summit is beyond me.
I think Ryan would say he is a staunch advocate of privatizing Medicare/Medicaid, at least to some extent. Things not run by the government often still exist, you know.