Ryan Says

[WillowTree]

"Lower the tax rate, and broaden the tax base." I'll vote for that. How about you?

 

[Vast LWC]

An empty slogan?

No thanks.

 

[WillowTree]

An empty slogan?

No thanks.

Why do you think it's empty?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Lower the tax rate, and broaden the tax base." I'll vote for that. How about you?

Of course.

Cut the red tape and taxes, and support the private economy rather than public employment.

 

[JBeukema]

*looks back over the last 60 years*

fuck that

 

[rightwinger]

Makes no sense

You have to go where the money is

Lower the tax rate= multimillionaires pay less
broaden the base= poor people pay more

Much less money coming in and an insignificant amount of extra money coming in to make up for it

 

[kaz]

Makes no sense

You have to go where the money is

Lower the tax rate= multimillionaires pay less
broaden the base= poor people pay more

Actually your way the poor don't pay more because they don't have jobs. Though you only believe that if you believe silly little things like empirical data...

 

[WillowTree]

Makes no sense

You have to go where the money is

Lower the tax rate= multimillionaires pay less
broaden the base= poor people pay more

Much less money coming in and an insignificant amount of extra money coming in to make up for it

don't think so, they're aren't enough millionaires to fund demonRat spending sprees, to let everyone pay a fair share.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"Lower the tax rate, and broaden the tax base." I'll vote for that. How about you?

Of course.

Cut the red tape and taxes, and support the private economy rather than public employment.

$UPPORT, of course, being the operative-word.

"But for instance, you will not eliminate tax breaks for Big Oil and Gas?"

*

Flippin' & Floppin'!!!!​

 

[Vast LWC]

Well, I guess you could just call them the "Freedom" tax breaks, tell everyone that they'll "help fight terrorism" and then get some corporate backing for an advertising campaign from the Koch brothers.

Of course, it won't actually accomplish anything, except to make you all feel better about your class warfare...

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Lower the tax rate, and broaden the tax base." I'll vote for that. How about you?

Does that mean taxing people who currently are paying little or no federal income tax (who happen to be lower income usually with dependents)?

While lowering the rate on the wealthy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Makes no sense

You have to go where the money is

Lower the tax rate= multimillionaires pay less
broaden the base= poor people pay more

Much less money coming in and an insignificant amount of extra money coming in to make up for it

don't think so, they're aren't enough millionaires to fund demonRat spending sprees, to let everyone pay a fair share.

Democrat spending sprees?? lol

Paul Ryan voted for the 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan, 550 billion just through 2015;

does he plan on paying for that spending spree?

How about the Bush wars, does he plan on paying for those?

 

[Immanuel]

Makes no sense

You have to go where the money is

Lower the tax rate= multimillionaires pay less
broaden the base= poor people pay more

Much less money coming in and an insignificant amount of extra money coming in to make up for it

I thought by broadening the tax base he meant begin taxing illegal aliens. In fact, if that is what he meant then I suspect he will have broad Republican support.

Personally, I am for increasing the tax rate and cutting spending. Unfortunately the only part of that equation that any politician understands is increasing the tax rate.

Immie

 

[kaz]

Well, I guess you could just call them the "Freedom" tax breaks, tell everyone that they'll "help fight terrorism" and then get some corporate backing for an advertising campaign from the Koch brothers.

Of course, it won't actually accomplish anything, except to make you all feel better about your class warfare...

Right, to NOT take money from the rich is "class warfare." Liberal word games, I do so enjoy those...

 

[Foxfyre]

The reason all people, rich and and poor alike, should be paying into the federal treasury is that all of us look to the federal government to secure our rights, provide the common defense, and promote the general welfare. When you have a large number of Americans paying little or nothing in federal income taxes, they have no stake in the system except to vote for people who will continue their privileged status.

Make everybody proportionately subject to whatever happens to the tax code, and you'll see politicians more interested in being sure it is across the board fair and equitable for everybody.

So yes. Broaden the tax base but take no more in taxes from anybody than the federal government absolutely has to have to do its constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

And as for that being a break for the 'rich', unless we are going to continue in the headlong rush toward bankruptcy, we cannot look to the 'rich' to carry the freight:

3. Higher taxes could eliminate the federal deficit.
Washington spends more than it takes in through tax revenues, resulting in a projected budget deficit of almost $1.35 trillion in 2010, or 9 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Couldn't we get rid of the deficit by raising taxes?

No. A study we conducted at the Tax Policy Center found that Washington would have to raise taxes by almost 40 percent to reduce -- not eliminate, just reduce -- the deficit to 3 percent of our GDP, the 2015 goal the Obama administration set in its 2011 budget. That tax boost would mean the lowest income tax rate would jump from 10 to nearly 14 percent, and the top rate from 35 to 48 percent.

What if we raised taxes only on families with couples making more than $250,000 a year and on individuals making more than $200,000? The top two income tax rates would have to more than double, with the top rate hitting almost 77 percent, to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP. Such dramatic tax increases are politically untenable and still wouldn't come close to eliminating the deficit.
5 Myths about your taxes

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901335

Disclaimer. Nobody, and I mean nobody would accuse the Brookings Institute of being a conservative or right leaning group, so if even THEY came to such conclusions, and with almost ALL more conservative groups concurring, you can pretty well take it to the bank they have their facts straight on this.

And that doesn't even consider the horrendous toll that such punishment heaped on the 'rich' would take on the poor in lost jobs, lower wages, less venture capital, less borrowing ability, etc. You simply cannot 'punish' the rich without hurting the poor more.

Far better to 'hurt' the poor a little and level the playing field for everybody. In the long run, that would almost certainly improve the standard of living for the poor and middle class.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republican strategy is to appeal to wealthier Americans, which they believe (because of the power of money in our election process) are person for person worth more politically than not-wealthy Americans. The power of money offsets the power of the number of individual potential voters.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Republican strategy is to appeal to wealthier Americans, which they believe (because of the power of money in our election process) are person for person worth more politically than not-wealthy Americans. The power of money offsets the power of the number of individual potential voters.

Doesn't it embarrass you to type something like that?

 

[kaz]

The Republican strategy is to appeal to wealthier Americans, which they believe (because of the power of money in our election process) are person for person worth more politically than not-wealthy Americans. The power of money offsets the power of the number of individual potential voters.

Reality check: You're the one advocating treating the wealthy differently then other Americans...

 

[kaz]

The Republican strategy is to appeal to wealthier Americans, which they believe (because of the power of money in our election process) are person for person worth more politically than not-wealthy Americans. The power of money offsets the power of the number of individual potential voters.

Doesn't it embarrass you to type something like that?

It's hard to believe it doesn't, isn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

Makes no sense

You have to go where the money is

Lower the tax rate= multimillionaires pay less
broaden the base= poor people pay more

Actually your way the poor don't pay more because they don't have jobs. Though you only believe that if you believe silly little things like empirical data...

Employees salaries are a business expense and are not taxed