Paul Ryan's (R) Roadmap

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
Has anyone read Paul Ryan's roadmap or gotten the highlights of it?

This article summarizes it nicely:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/102505334.html

Ryan is taking no prisoners with this ambitious plan, I wish others (Mcconnell and Boner) would stone up and support it.

Ryan is frank when he says he doesn't see tax policy as an income redistribution tool.

Also, he's spot on saying comparing his Medicare plan to Medicare in it's current form is a fantasy, since Medicare is not sustainable.

If all these measures were to be passed, in my opinion, this could do a complete 180 to our economy and set America up for economic dominance throughout the 21st century.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
It's a bad joke. What's sad is that he claims tax policy shouldn't redistribute wealth, yet his roadmap would quite literally concentrate 90% of all the wealth in the U.S. to the top 1% of the population. That's not a made-up stat either, that's directly from his proposal.
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
Why should one person have to pay 30% of their income to taxes and another pays 0%?

Would you prefer a Soviet style system where everyone makes the same and pays the same? Where's the incentive to excel there?

Also, is it fair that dividends be taxed?

Dividends have already been taxed, and you're basically telling the OWNERS of the company, that they have to pay taxes on it AGAIN!
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
It's a bad joke. What's sad is that he claims tax policy shouldn't redistribute wealth, yet his roadmap would quite literally concentrate 90% of all the wealth in the U.S. to the top 1% of the population. That's not a made-up stat either, that's directly from his proposal.

Also, his roadmap doesn't concentrate anything, the concentration is already there.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Below is what I posted after his roadmap came out earlier this year

Even the Republican party has distanced themselves from his plan.

I still maintain this guy is a disaster.


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.


.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Below is what I posted after his roadmap came out earlier this year

Even the Republican party has distanced themselves from his plan.

I still maintain this guy is a disaster.


Deficits, Debt, and Fiscal Responsibility: Radical Priorities in the Ryan Budget "Roadmap"

http://www.cbpp.org/

Executive Summary of actual report



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.


.

It's hard to take anything you posted seriously when you reference cbpp.org as a source. Huffpo didn't have anything available? ;)

I haven't even looked at the Ryan plan, but if the left fringe thinks it's insane, there have to be some solid points for it.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Why should one person have to pay 30% of their income to taxes and another pays 0%?

Would you prefer a Soviet style system where everyone makes the same and pays the same? Where's the incentive to excel there?

Also, is it fair that dividends be taxed?

Dividends have already been taxed, and you're basically telling the OWNERS of the company, that they have to pay taxes on it AGAIN!

Because their standard of living is substantially higher due to the government providing things to them.

In the soviet system, you made the same for DOING THE SAME JOB, everyone did not make the same wage. Doctors and trash men were not paid the same. Fallacy.

Dividends should be taxed, they are income just like capital gains.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
I wish people would talk more about this plan. Privitization of ss is so popular isnt it? Higher taxes on the middle class is what people are really asking for isnt it?

The republicans will run away from this stuff if they are smart....

Oh i know its the main stream media not reporting the facts right....right....
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
I think it's good he puts forth his plan openly, many republicans has no plan. However, I'm no expert, so cannot comment on its long term viability. God forbid all these numbers confuses me. Anything I say would just be an average-joe opinion nothing more. Why don't they get some people who knows this stuff to calculate it see how it turns out. If it can be endorsed by a team of non-partisan economists who know this stuff I'd consider supporting it.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
It's hard to take anything you posted seriously when you reference cbpp.org as a source. Huffpo didn't have anything available? ;)

I haven't even looked at the Ryan plan, but if the left fringe thinks it's insane, there have to be some solid points for it.

Don't like the message so shoot the messenger - excellent response.

OK here some comments from the (conservative leaning) Tax Policy Institute
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412046_ryan_taxplan.pdf

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.

Pretty much what cbpp says. You could have read the links I posted - it is one of them.

Even the Republican party has not taken up his roadmap. You should google up what John Boehner said about the roadmap. He distanced himself from it.

..
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Why should one person have to pay 30% of their income to taxes and another pays 0%?

Would you prefer a Soviet style system where everyone makes the same and pays the same? Where's the incentive to excel there?

Also, is it fair that dividends be taxed?

Dividends have already been taxed, and you're basically telling the OWNERS of the company, that they have to pay taxes on it AGAIN!

Picking one out of the list of errors:

Everything has already been taxed.

That dollar you paid income tax on, was received by your employer when someone bought a widget they sale, and sales tax was paid on the sale. The person who bought the widget paid for it with a dollar he'd eared after he paid income tax on it. His employer who paid him the dollar got it when someone bought their product, and the person who bought that product paid income tax on the dollar he paid with, and so on.

Try again about what's fair.

You spend an 8 hour day of labor for a modest wage. Person B has a lot of money, and spends the time playing golf while his money earns a lot more than you make.

Is it fair he pays taxes on his income as well as you?

You are spouting some ideological twisted version of what's 'fair' to argue only you should pay taxes on your income, not the wealthy who get most of their from others' labor.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
<snip>
You are spouting some ideological twisted version of what's 'fair' to argue only you should pay taxes on your income, not the wealthy who get most of their from others' labor.

What prevents you from getting better off on someone elses labor?
They have taken their money and invested it so as to get a return.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
Why should one person have to pay 30% of their income to taxes and another pays 0%?

Would you prefer a Soviet style system where everyone makes the same and pays the same? Where's the incentive to excel there?

Also, is it fair that dividends be taxed?

Dividends have already been taxed, and you're basically telling the OWNERS of the company, that they have to pay taxes on it AGAIN!

There is a large area between a Ryan style aristocracy and Soviet Totalitarianism. Just sayin'.

Of course its fair that dividends are taxed. Anything you buy has been taxed over and over again. Sales tax. Fees. Whatever. Why should dividends be so special?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Why should one person have to pay 30&#37; of their income to taxes and another pays 0%?

Would you prefer a Soviet style system where everyone makes the same and pays the same? Where's the incentive to excel there?

Also, is it fair that dividends be taxed?

Dividends have already been taxed, and you're basically telling the OWNERS of the company, that they have to pay taxes on it AGAIN!

Thank you for the blatantly false dichtomy of suggesting that supporting a progressive tax system is the same as supporting Soviet style communism. Everyone who disagrees with you is not a communist. There are more than two distinct political viewpoints in this world. I see no point in reading your posts any further.

- wolf
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
LOL, I see the roadmap isn't too popular here.

The parts of it I like the best are his plan for Medicare, that's our biggest long term problem, and his solution, solves that problem.

Also like the elimination of the dividend tax.

As I said, those earnings have already been taxed, and frankly dividends keep companies honest, I trust a dividend paying company much more than one that doesn't. If this tax were eliminated, almost all companies would start paying a dividend, since the taxation is one of the reasons they don't pay one.

Think of it this way, you pay taxes on your paycheck, then you take some of your net pay and give each of your kids a 20 dollar allowance. Your money has already been taxed, but the IRS comes in and demands 3 dollars from each of your kids since their money should be taxed too.

I am not opposed to capital gains tax, I don't have a moral objection to that, unlike the dividend tax which is basically theft in my opinion.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
There's no real "opinion" on this one; it's a terrible roadmap that would very likely demolish the middle class and doesn't even solve the budget deficit. It's crap with crap on top smoothed in horse piss.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
you have to be an idiot to think that eliminating dividend tax helps anyone other than the very wealthy - how many people do you know have anything significant in terms of dividend income?

This entire plan is nothing other than another way of trying to gain the support of the people who might someday fill his election coffers
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
LOL, I see the roadmap isn't too popular here.

The parts of it I like the best are his plan for Medicare, that's our biggest long term problem, and his solution, solves that problem.

Also like the elimination of the dividend tax.

As I said, those earnings have already been taxed, and frankly dividends keep companies honest, I trust a dividend paying company much more than one that doesn't. If this tax were eliminated, almost all companies would start paying a dividend, since the taxation is one of the reasons they don't pay one.

Think of it this way, you pay taxes on your paycheck, then you take some of your net pay and give each of your kids a 20 dollar allowance. Your money has already been taxed, but the IRS comes in and demands 3 dollars from each of your kids since their money should be taxed too.

I am not opposed to capital gains tax, I don't have a moral objection to that, unlike the dividend tax which is basically theft in my opinion.

In this analogy you are spending your money, but the kids are receiving an income. Irrespective of where their income comes I see no reason why they should not pay tax on it.

This is a bad analogy because you can gift them the money & some it will be tax exempt and the rest will incur gift tax.

And as others have said, reducing the dividend tax only helps the wealthy who can afford to buy large quantities of stock and, in theory, could derive all their income from dividends and pay very little tax on it. But working people have to pay higher taxes.


..
 
Last edited:

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
There's no real "opinion" on this one; it's a terrible roadmap that would very likely demolish the middle class and doesn't even solve the budget deficit. It's crap with crap on top smoothed in horse piss.

Its a wonderful roadmap for the aristocracy and their serfs. Unfortunately, a good chunk of the American population still has a Middle Ages mentality.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I wish people would talk more about this plan. Privitization of ss is so popular isnt it? Higher taxes on the middle class is what people are really asking for isnt it?

You are right, what people really want is all of the benefit and none of the cost. We really don't want to raise anyones taxes but we damn sure want our "free shit".
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
His plan would create an aristocracy in the US. The wealthy would inherit money and accumulate dividends while paying no taxes, while the people working for a living would bear all of the burden. This is a Republican wet dream.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
How's that working out for ya?

It's working great actually. I work for a tech company that's owned by a Private Equity firm that's funded by bazillionaires. I have a high salary and stock options, and I will be financially rewarded when I help sell the company. I'd rather billionaires keep their own money rather than have government take it and hand it over to an unemployed dumb ass average looking douche like you.