Paul Ryan: 'It Would Take Me Too Long' To Explain Mitt Romney's Tax Plan

[joko104]

It would be easier if there was not tax plan at all, ala Obama style. Just curse the rich while giving them everything they want. That's the Obama tax plan.

 

[Somerville]

nah, even members of the administration say Ryan is a whiz at math.


:shrug: and he didn't have the time. He had a 10 minute (ish) interview to hit the themes he wanted to hit. He's campaigning. For those of you who want more details, it's not exactly secret.

Members of the Administration say nice, but untrue, things about Republicans all the time, Paul Ryan is no 'wonk'

This is supposed to provide more 'details'?

 

[Dwight]

I did not know that he was wanting to cut all interest/dividend/cap gains for people making less than $200K. That could have a profound impact on the middle class.

That is mostly a benefit to retired people (although depending on what happened with business tax rates business owners might see a net benefit, too if they stopped drawing a salary and their business was restructured from pass-thru corp to one that was able to pay dividends). I believe that's a Paul Ryan import and the plan was to increase the taxes on middle-income that would offset that for all but those. Except for those relying heavily on interest/dividend/cap gains, most people would see little-to-negative benefit from it.

 

[The Barbarian]

What I find funny, is liberals plain and simple. They attack a plan when they themselves know nothing of the details . Then on the other hand defend this administration that for the past 4 years not only hasn’t come up with a plan, but can’t even produce a budget. Perhaps they should look inward when it comes to producing plans, or using math, because it’s their party that seems totally incapable of doing either.

Liberals also have some funny ideas of fiscal responsibility, they want tax increases ….. But only if it doesn’t effect them, they ALWAYS refer to the Bush tax cuts as tax cuts for the wealthy, but they don’t want all the tax cuts to expire. Those that effect them they want left in place. I guess they must be the wealthy seeing how that is all the Bush tax cuts were for.

Another thing .. They want more and more revenue from the wealthy, through taxation. Yet they keep ignoring our spending, In 1989 it costs us 1.44 trillion to keep our government running, in 2011 it costs us 3.83 trillion to keep it running. Roughly a 265% increase in government spending. Yet liberals don’t think we have a spending problem

The liberal plan is to tax our way our of our problems, ooppps sorry .. Tax the wealthy to get us out of our problems. I gave these numbers once before .. I’ll give them one more time .. Just so we can see how the liberal plan fails so badly.

The upper 5% the liberals hate .. . Lets hit them hard .. It averages out to $100,000 each for everyone making $250,000 (upper 5%) But guess what ? Just to balance the budget at our present rate of spending , every working person making under $250,000 is going to have to ante up over $7,000 more in taxes. That includes teachers, firemen, policemen, ditch diggers, hotel maids, everyone that works. That’s just to balance our existing budget, still doesn’t begin to pay down our debt. If we freeze spending for the next 45 years … and can figure out a way to come up with $333 billion “more” in tax revenue we can be debt free in 45 years.

So well liberals love to attack any plan given by Ryan/Romney or any other Republican, I think the reason is because they feel that by attacking another's plan they can deflect away from the “FACT” that they can’t even produce a budget for a single year, yet alone come up with a plan that has a snowballs chance in hell of working. In my simple mind .. Doing nothing and hoping for the best just isn’t working.

So attack Ryan’s/Romney plan all you want, they at least has something on the table to start from, and that is 100% more then anyone from either party has.

 

[wolfman24]

Maybe we have to vote for it to see what's in it. <== seemed to be what the DEMs loved about Obamacare.

Asking someone to define their tax plan in an interview - beyond what has already been discussed - is a plea for an 'my-eye-glazed-over' distraction. Everyone who wants to know knows that by broadening the tax base and reducing the tax rate can be either revenue-neutral, a reduction in revenue, or an increase in revenue. The exact ratios are subject to mind-numbing calculations and negotiations in congress where such discussions have to take place.

Nobody does these negotiations on the campaign trail. Nobody has asked Obama for the details of his "tax only the rich" proposals. If someone asked him the details for that he would most likely say "osama is dead and GM is alive" and move on.

The question a voter has to ask about taxes is this - "Is our problem that we spend too much or tax too little?"

And the answer to that question should drive any decision to be made as to which party to support based on economic issues.

This is a very strange statement. When Clinton was running during his first term he put his plan on the internet and made it available to anyone who wrote in and asked for it. Why can't Ryan do that?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Really!! Thaddaboy Paulie thats they way to sell your plan...I dont have the errr it would take me to long to explain it...then its not worth SQUAT.....they will take the mortgage deduction that by itself will be a huge tax increase for the middle class and far over rides any tax cut they SAY they are going to give...

Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan promised again on Sunday that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would bring lower tax rates for all Americans while remaining revenue-neutral, although he didn’t fully explain how it would accomplish that. The Obama campaign has blasted the Romney-Ryan ticket for not providing details on how it would give Americans such large tax breaks without growing the deficit. Ryan reiterated in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" that the plan would drop taxpayers' bills by 20 percent without costing a dime, due to closed tax loopholes, but he was short on specifics when pressed by host Chris Wallace.
“You haven’t given me the math,” Wallace said in one exchange.
“I don’t have the ... It would take me too long to go through all of the math,” Ryan responded.


Paul Ryan: 'It Would Take Me Too Long' To Explain Mitt Romney's Tax Plan (VIDEO)

Riiiight...... More like: "I cant concoct a Dr. Seuss explanation on the spot that democrats could comprehend."

If Ryan did take the time to explain Romney's (actually his) tax plan it would take an hour and democrats would still be clueless.

 

[Fisher]

It would also benefit people when they sell mom's house that she put in their name before she died to keep the nursing home from getting it only to lose the stepped up basis they would have gotten had they inherited it instead. It could encourage investment in bonds or stocks knowing one does not have to fool with gains on their taxes. It is not something that will help everybody everyday, but it could help enough. It could also help farmers that have to sell off part of their land to keep the farm going. I am not quite ready to articulate a specific policy as of yet, but I am pondering ways in which excluding certain types of property and setting floors like that on cap gains might be more reasonable than no cap gains ever.

Edit: I guess my problem with eliminating all cap gains is that there has been no discussion of eliminating depreciation deductions and the two are so inter-related that it would seem inequitable to abolish the gains without abolishing depreciation too,

 

[iliveonramen]

Now, that being said, the Romney/Ryan plan involves cutting marginal rates by 20% and broadening the base which likely means eliminating certain itemized deductions and, perhaps, reducing or eliminating some of the refundable credits.

Well that's kind of a big deal and exactly what people are asking for details on. In your second paragraph you state that mortgage interest and property tax deduction wouldn't be eliminated. The problem is the marginal deductions put a very big whole in revenue that has to be filled with something. The only deductions that are large enough to fill it ARE the mortgage interest deductions, property tax deductions, state income tax deductions, employer health care deductions etc.

According to the result of his marginal tax rate cuts....the only "broadening of the base" that can fill that hole is by raising taxes on everyone else. Well....you could always not fund the tax cuts which seems more likely

 

[Mr.Nick]

It would also benefit people when they sell mom's house that she put in their name before she died to keep the nursing home from getting it only to lose the stepped up basis they would have gotten had they inherited it instead. It could encourage investment in bonds or stocks knowing one does not have to fool with gains on their taxes. It is not something that will help everybody everyday, but it could help enough. It could also help farmers that have to sell off part of their land to keep the farm going. I am not quite ready to articulate a specific policy as of yet, but I am pondering ways in which excluding certain types of property and setting floors like that on cap gains might be more reasonable than no cap gains ever.

Edit: I guess my problem with eliminating all cap gains is that there has been no discussion of eliminating depreciation deductions and the two are so inter-related that it would seem inequitable to abolish the gains without abolishing depreciation too,

My grandmother was a smart woman - she put all assets in my Dads (and uncles) names several years before she passed - including her bank account. She pretty much just legally gave them her entire estate.

 

[Lutherf]

P.S. If you and your spouse make about the same amount, it's financially better to file seperately for lower taxes. If one spouse makes more than the other better to file jointly.

Interesting comment. Care to explain it in one quick soundbite?

 

[Dwight]

Interesting comment. Care to explain it in one quick soundbite?

If your incomes are uneven you can avoid the higher tax bracket through income leveling by filing a joint return, assuming the smaller income isn't already in the top bracket by itself.

If your incomes are near equal (same tax bracket) there is a small benefit to filing separately because when you filing jointly you don't get a full doubling of deductions and sizing of income level of each tax backet.

 

[lonewolf]

Tax code is a behemoth and most middle class do not understand it and typically pay someone else to do their taxes unless they are doing the 1040EZ form. The rich and businesses also hire specialist. Since that is the case it is very difficult to explain. I heard Ryan talk about his plan yesterday and it makes sense.

The rich take advantage of tax deductions that are hard for the middle class to take advantage of and Ryan wants to take those deductions away at the same time he wants to reduce taxes across the board (to everyone). The left are saying it will not work because it can't be paid for but they are wrong.

Right now, so many people lost their jobs and depend on UE and welfare. This is an expense to the government. Romney and Ryan want to change policies that create growth in the economy. When there is growth companies hire to meet increase demand. This is good for everyone who wants to work but can't find a job. People want to work because working helps them pay for a better life. When people are working it moves those people off UE and welfare (expense) and moves them into the growth side (also increasing government revenue).

Hurting companies hurts profit and companies respond by laying people off and reducing dividend payouts. Unemployment rates increase and demand decreases. This also hurt the people who depend on their life savings and dividends from those savings.

Taxes are so involved that it would boggle your minds. On the other side I am still waiting for Obama to explain exactly how he plans on building the economy from the middle class out. How do the middle class increase their income? Everything (companies, middle class) are inter-related and dependent on the other to be healthy.

 

[Fisher]

My grandmother was a smart woman - she put all assets in my Dads (and uncles) names several years before she passed - including her bank account. She pretty much just legally gave them her entire estate.

There are arguments both ways. CPA's prefer people not do that with real estate because when you sell the property you have to pay cap gains on the difference between what grandma paid (or the last person who paid if grandma did not pay) and the sales price. If dad inherited instead he would only have to pay cap gains on the amount between the sales price and the value when inherited. Of course, CPA's are idiots when it comes to nursing homes taking stuff--they just worry about the taxes and the free stepped up basis you get with inheritance as opposed to gifts, not the risk that you could lose it all to a nursing home before the stepped up basis ever materializes.

 

[Fisher]

Obama is really trying to force them to detail what deductions they would eliminate (though probably more to anger the GOP fundraisers into revolt than to sway the general public).

 

[shiang]

If your incomes are uneven you can avoid the higher tax bracket through income leveling by filing a joint return, assuming the smaller income isn't already in the top bracket by itself.

If your incomes are near equal (same tax bracket) there is a small benefit to filing separately because when you filing jointly you don't get a full doubling of deductions and sizing of income level of each tax backet.

Bravo!!! now you've officially reached 1% of the American people =P. ...all you need to win.

 

[shiang]

Tax code is a behemoth and most middle class do not understand it and typically pay someone else to do their taxes unless they are doing the 1040EZ form. The rich and businesses also hire specialist. Since that is the case it is very difficult to explain. I heard Ryan talk about his plan yesterday and it makes sense.

The rich take advantage of tax deductions that are hard for the middle class to take advantage of and Ryan wants to take those deductions away at the same time he wants to reduce taxes across the board (to everyone). The left are saying it will not work because it can't be paid for but they are wrong.

Right now, so many people lost their jobs and depend on UE and welfare. This is an expense to the government. Romney and Ryan want to change policies that create growth in the economy. When there is growth companies hire to meet increase demand. This is good for everyone who wants to work but can't find a job. People want to work because working helps them pay for a better life. When people are working it moves those people off UE and welfare (expense) and moves them into the growth side (also increasing government revenue).

Hurting companies hurts profit and companies respond by laying people off and reducing dividend payouts. Unemployment rates increase and demand decreases. This also hurt the people who depend on their life savings and dividends from those savings.

Taxes are so involved that it would boggle your minds. On the other side I am still waiting for Obama to explain exactly how he plans on building the economy from the middle class out. How do the middle class increase their income? Everything (companies, middle class) are inter-related and dependent on the other to be healthy.

There's a degree for it called Finance. I tried reading it and realized it would take me at least a month to understand all of it ...so like a good citizen I gave up =P. I got the gist of it. The more you make in income the higher the limit the government can gimp you on your taxes... if you do nothing. Government won't tax super rich people any more than 15%. If you're smart enough to hire someone to do your taxes for you or if your a true genious or majored in finance... then you pay less. If you're poor then it dosen't make much sense to tax you then give that money back.

 

[Dwight]

Obama is really trying to force them to detail what deductions they would eliminate (though probably more to anger the GOP fundraisers into revolt than to sway the general public).

That could be. It could be why Romney has entirely blown an absolutely golden opportunity to convincingly demonstrate commitment to meaningful "loophole" closing. His own tax filings. He could have come out right at the beginning and said something like "my own filings show what is wrong with the tax code, the rules that lower my tax bill that much are broken, I am willing to pay more in taxes by closing these loopholes and eliminating deductions and then lowering the rates for everyone".

Instead he doggedly held back even releasing his tax records. Then repeatedly defended them, "nothing wrong here!" (paraphrased) How is that suppose to convince the American public he is sincere?

 

[Fisher]

Apparently Romney is able to get some very special loopholes not based on his income but by the nature of Bain's business that others even with comparable incomes cannot get. I am not exactly sure what they are, but I heard a rich guy on TV talking about it.

 

[jonny5]

Really!! Thaddaboy Paulie thats they way to sell your plan...I dont have the errr it would take me to long to explain it...then its not worth SQUAT.....they will take the mortgage deduction that by itself will be a huge tax increase for the middle class and far over rides any tax cut they SAY they are going to give...

Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan promised again on Sunday that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would bring lower tax rates for all Americans while remaining revenue-neutral, although he didn’t fully explain how it would accomplish that. The Obama campaign has blasted the Romney-Ryan ticket for not providing details on how it would give Americans such large tax breaks without growing the deficit. Ryan reiterated in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" that the plan would drop taxpayers' bills by 20 percent without costing a dime, due to closed tax loopholes, but he was short on specifics when pressed by host Chris Wallace.
“You haven’t given me the math,” Wallace said in one exchange.
“I don’t have the ... It would take me too long to go through all of the math,” Ryan responded.


Paul Ryan: 'It Would Take Me Too Long' To Explain Mitt Romney's Tax Plan (VIDEO)

To be fair, if he threw out some talking points on the plan, details available at Tax | Mitt Romney for President, you would just cherry pick a quote and post some rhetoric about it as well. Whats the point? You're absolutely right that Ryan missed a chance to provide some substance. Youre absolutely wrong if you think it would make a difference to anyone.

 

[lonewolf]

Most people don't understand taxes and the left would have went wild. There are even people who are attacking Romney because he gave to charities to reduce his tax rate. That is ridiculous and reaching. I say the rich should stop giving to charities and pay the taxes to make people happy. When the government throws you crumbs and charities go bankrupt then the left would scream again.

I never thought about it the way you put it. Romney realizes this and it is why he is going to take away deductions. The sad truth is, no matter what Romney says Obama's followers will put a spin on it to benefit Obama.

 

[Dooble]

Really!! Thaddaboy Paulie thats they way to sell your plan...I dont have the errr it would take me to long to explain it...then its not worth SQUAT....

Just like Nancy Pelosi's "You've gotta pass it before you see what's in it" explanation of Obamacare! YAH!!!

 

[Dwight]

Apparently Romney is able to get some very special loopholes not based on his income but by the nature of Bain's business that others even with comparable incomes cannot get. I am not exactly sure what they are, but I heard a rich guy on TV talking about it.

The loophole Romney has access to, and uses, is nothing short of grotesque. He pays capital gains rate on pass-thru income from a partnership (meaning there was no corporate income tax paid on it) on something wasn't really capital gains and shouldn't be classified as such as it was short term income.**

** The initial reasoning behind lower rate for capital gains is to avoid taxing the difference between increase in real value and increase in $ value, which is caused by inflation.

 

[Fisher]

I wasn't aware that anybody could only pay cap gains rate on pass through income. I have one (LLC) and it is treated as just regular income. That must be what the guy was talking about when he said it was limited to people who are in that specific business.

 

[Dwight]

There are even people who are attacking Romney because he gave to charities to reduce his tax rate.

I'm curious who that was?

I take issue that those donations are, in full, legal income tax deductions directly off the top of adjusted gross income but that is something entirely different. EDIT: And is obviously not a personal attack on Governor Romney or his actions.

 

[Dwight]

I wasn't aware that anybody could only pay cap gains rate on pass through income.

That's because your industry doesn't have big enough bags of money to spend on lobbying? It is a special deal for venture capitalists! EDIT: I believe it only kicks in if their rate of return exceeds some minimum percentage, IIRC? Don't recall the exact details at the moment.