JEC: Ryan/Romney would raise middle class taxes

A new report by the Joint Economic Committee analyzed the Paul Ryan tax plan, which has been endorsed by Mitt Romney. Bottom line, and no surprise: tax hikes for the middle class and huge tax cuts for the rich.

So although households earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year would save about $7,000 from the lower tax rates in the GOP plan, those savings would be swamped by eliminating major deductions, according to the report by the Democratically controlled congressional Joint Economic Committee.The net result: Married couples in that income range would pay an additional $2,700 annually to the Internal Revenue Service, on top of the tax increases that are scheduled to hit every American household when the George W. Bush-era cuts expire at the end of the year.
Households earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.

Middle class would face higher taxes under Republican plan - The Washington Post

Click to expand...

Awesome.

Seniors in florida already knew that and rejected Ryan and his plan totally

You mean a Democratically controlled committee used statistics and methods of analysis that resulted in a Republican plan doing something that helps the Democratic Parties political arguments?

I'm shocked. Shocked I say!

So although households earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year would save about $7,000 from the lower tax rates in the GOP plan, those savings would be swamped by eliminating major deductions, according to the report by the Democratically controlled congressional Joint Economic Committee.The net result: Married couples in that income range would pay an additional $2,700 annually to the Internal Revenue Service, on top of the tax increases that are scheduled to hit every American household when the George W. Bush-era cuts expire at the end of the year. Households earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.

Click to expand...

Um, how exactly does the Ryan plan cut the tax paid by a household earning $1,000,000 by that much? How much does such a household pay in income tax today? $300,000? Is their tax being zeroed out, or close to???

households earning $100,000 to $200,000

Click to expand...

That's middle class?

Holy cow, I'm in the wrong business!

AdamT said:

A new report by the Joint Economic Committee analyzed the Paul Ryan tax plan, which has been endorsed by Mitt Romney. Bottom line, and no surprise: tax hikes for the middle class and huge tax cuts for the rich.



Awesome.

Click to expand...

too priceless....so lets walk through this.. so without the Ryan Plan, the GWB tax cuts not being reinstated would cost even more and and be devasting, but the Ryan plan offsets that to some degree...and thats bad? but not the fact that Obama is going to allow the GWB tax cuts to expire ???? and if we had both, the Ryan plan and the GWB Tax cuts , the Ryan plan would actually save people a nice chunk of tax money without the loss of the money lost by losing the GWB tax cuts..

and somehow the Ryan plan is bad???

I too think that the vile Wapo articel is BS.. as ther is no way a person making a million is going to save $300,000, it has to be someone making over 12 million..


Now tell me how this effects a sub s corp?....good luck

Zyphlin said:

You mean a Democratically controlled committee used statistics and methods of analysis that resulted in a Republican plan doing something that helps the Democratic Parties political arguments?

I'm shocked. Shocked I say!

Click to expand...

Or we could take their word that oh no, they will not raise taxes on the middle class, honest, trust us. Just because they refuse to actually give the details that would prove them right does not mean anything and if the tax plan is revenue nuetral as they claim it almost has to raise taxes onj the middle class, ignore that.

Howler63 said:

That's middle class?

Click to expand...

$200,000. per year is only considered middleclass whenever lying Liberals need to use it for propaganda. If a Republican President were to give tax breaks to people earning $200,000. then these same lying Liberals would change their stance and complain that it's a tax break for the rich.

The two paragraphs that Adam didn't quote, which immediately preceded the ones he did, make it clear that this "analysis" is speculation, based on the deductions they chose to "analyze."

Those changes would benefit virtually every taxpayer, but they also would reduce federal tax collections by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. To avoid increasing the national debt by that amount, GOP leaders such as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.) have pledged to get rid of all the special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code.

Republicans have declined to identify their targets. However, some of the biggest “loopholes” on the books are popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and retirement savings, which disproportionately benefit the upper middle class.

Click to expand...

Revenue neutral tax cuts for the rich...

How can we accomplish that? First lets get the voodoo myth out of the way. If it's revenue neutral, we can't be counting increased revenue that likely won't happen.

The only way I can think to make this happen without raising taxes somewhere else is to start gutting programs that support lower income Americans.

All the Conservatives yell hip hooray.

Then let's talk about the fact that this additional money that floods through our markets will no longer be in the market place funneling toward the top. Basically it will already be at the top. Same money, same destination, no stimulative effect on its way up.

Considering the record of lower taxes creating jobs over the last 10 years or so, we can very safely assume that there's not going to be any great influx of hiring or raises given out to share that additional revenue.

Where does it go then? Well, it get's parked in some interest drawing account like their other liquid assets. The truth is those with means don't have to spend, and won't spend in any meaningful way until we see marked growth.

Consider the alternative? Most of you won't, but if you care to, what if we didn't start gutting programs, but raised taxes, ended government subsidies to corn farmers and oil companies, and all forms of "subsidizing" in the private market. Then we withdraw from afghanistan, and cut defense spending to peace time levels while bringing home all these contractors we've got over there cleaning up the mess we are making.

In my mind, these steps are getting us closer to balancing out than cutting taxes and gutting programs that keep money flowing up.

The conservative ideology has been a proven bust. It baffles me how many actually believe it's a good thing to start the money at the top rather than letting it flow there as it always has. At least from the bottom up, you have people trading for goods and services in great number. The top down approach keeps most of us at home conserving gas while the blessed gamble the market like their in Vegas while there nest egg hangs out in some safe account drawing 20%. The money is headed for that nest egg anyway... why wouldn't we started at the bottom and let it flow?

Harshaw said:

The two paragraphs that Adam didn't quote, which immediately preceded the ones he did, make it clear that this "analysis" is speculation, based on the deductions they chose to "analyze."

Click to expand...

I just don't see how the proposal is a bad thing.

Redress said:

Or we could take their word that oh no, they will not raise taxes on the middle class, honest, trust us. Just because they refuse to actually give the details that would prove them right does not mean anything and if the tax plan is revenue nuetral as they claim it almost has to raise taxes onj the middle class, ignore that.

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

A new report by the Joint Economic Committee analyzed the Paul Ryan tax plan, which has been endorsed by Mitt Romney. Bottom line, and no surprise: tax hikes for the middle class and huge tax cuts for the rich.

Awesome.

Click to expand...

I find this hilarious. On the one hand they are attacked for not providing specifics on which deductions would be cut and where. On the other, they are attacked for the scored effects of cutting those deductions.

Which means that this "study" just made up the specifics, scored them, and then attributed them to the Ryan Plan.

Alright, I can play this game too:



Big surprise, Obama doesnt care about the children he's piling massive debt on to. Dems, how can you defend this guy? :roll:



I also found this part fascinating:

...Households earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually...

Click to expand...

woah. Households making a million dollars annually are seeing a tax bill anything close to $300,000 in just income taxes? Gosh, that sounds suspiciously like claims that millionaires are paying less in taxes than the middle class are bunk.

Harshaw said:

The two paragraphs that Adam didn't quote, which immediately preceded the ones he did, make it clear that this "analysis" is speculation, based on the deductions they chose to "analyze."

Click to expand...

cpwill said:

I find this hilarious. On the one hand they are attacked for not providing specifics on which deductions would be cut and where. On the other, they are attacked for the scored effects of cutting those deductions.

Which means that this "study" just made up the specifics, scored them, and then attributed them to the Ryan Plan.

Alright, I can play this game too:

"President Obama has refused to specify how he would reform entitlements, even though he has admitted that it is impossible to tax enough to pay for Medicare/Medicaid. He has put into place the IPAB to keep down costs, but again refused to provide specifics on how that would be accomplished. PRESIDENT OBAMA IS GOING TO MURDER SICK CHILDREN IN ORDER TO REIGN IN COSTS TO MEDICAID!!!"​

Big surprise, Obama doesnt care about the children he's piling massive debt on to. Dems, how can you defend this guy? :roll:



I also found this part fascinating:



woah. Households making a million dollars annually are seeing a tax bill anything close to $300,000 in just income taxes? Gosh, that sounds suspiciously like claims that millionaires are paying less in taxes than the middle class are bunk.

Click to expand...

Its a tricky play on words. The person could be making $100B to get that $300,000. You see $100B is over $1M.

AdamT said:

A new report by the Joint Economic Committee analyzed the Paul Ryan tax plan, which has been endorsed by Mitt Romney. Bottom line, and no surprise: tax hikes for the middle class and huge tax cuts for the rich.



Awesome.

Click to expand...

If you want us to keep creating jobs then we need a tax break.

AdamT said:

A new report by the Joint Economic Committee analyzed the Paul Ryan tax plan, which has been endorsed by Mitt Romney. Bottom line, and no surprise: tax hikes for the middle class and huge tax cuts for the rich.



Awesome.

Click to expand...

Aside from the Chicago office telling you that this is accurate, how do they or you know what the impact will be. Neither party is willing to discuss in detail what deductions they are willing to cut out.

Axelrod should have at least given you a list of middle class deductions he/you claim they will go after to make this thread a little less of a joke.

AdamT said:

A new report by the Joint Economic Committee analyzed the Paul Ryan tax plan, which has been endorsed by Mitt Romney. Bottom line, and no surprise: tax hikes for the middle class and huge tax cuts for the rich.



Awesome.

Click to expand...

if taxes have to be raised to pay for all the governmental crap people like you want, then the taxes should be raised on those who drive that spending

cpwill said:

I find this hilarious. On the one hand they are attacked for not providing specifics on which deductions would be cut and where. On the other, they are attacked for the scored effects of cutting those deductions.

Click to expand...

Wait. Show me where I said the scoring was accurate. Come on, show me where I said that. Or, I suppose you could admit you are just making **** up since you can't argue with what I said.

Redress said:

Wait. Show me where I said the scoring was accurate. Come on, show me where I said that. Or, I suppose you could admit you are just making **** up since you can't argue with what I said.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you said that - specifically I was using the accuracy of your charges to demonstrate the failures of the implicit claims of the OP. Touchy much?

lpast said:

Seniors in florida already knew that and rejected Ryan and his plan totally

Click to expand...

Will they reject Romney completely, that's the question.

johnny_rebson said:

If you want us to keep creating jobs then we need a tax break.

Click to expand...

Who's we?

The wealthy have had a tax break for 10 years, yet Teatards keep blaming Obama for lack of job creation.

hazlnut said:

Who's we?

The wealthy have had a tax break for 10 years, yet Teatards keep blaming Obama for lack of job creation.

Click to expand...

The middle class have had a tax break (a bigger one) for the same period of time, yet people keep blaming the wealthy not paying taxes for the deficit.

cpwill said:

I didn't say you said that - specifically I was using the accuracy of your charges to demonstrate the failures of the implicit claims of the OP. Touchy much?

Click to expand...

Well in that case I misunderstood.

AdamT said:

A new report by the Joint Economic Committee analyzed the Paul Ryan tax plan, which has been endorsed by Mitt Romney. Bottom line, and no surprise: tax hikes for the middle class and huge tax cuts for the rich.



Awesome.

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting a total speculative report that means what? Nothing.

Born Free said:

Thank you for posting a total speculative report that means what? Nothing.

Click to expand...

Well it was probably the last missive from Obama HQ and had to get it on the internet.

Redress said:

Or we could take their word that oh no, they will not raise taxes on the middle class, honest, trust us. Just because they refuse to actually give the details that would prove them right does not mean anything and if the tax plan is revenue nuetral as they claim it almost has to raise taxes onj the middle class, ignore that.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. One sided slamming of partisan sources by Redress without any review of what actually is being said in it....okay. Similar thing by Zyphlin...must assumes he believes the other side completely. Glad to know your tactics in other threads are only apparently legitimate for you.

:thumbsup:

I doubt anything put out by politicians is going to function exactly how they say it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it causes a net raise on some people both in the middle class and at the top. However questionable analysis from a questionable group is hardly worth while for judging the situation.