• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

lonewolf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Um, the main objection as I understand it is that Willard manipulated the amount of contributions claimed to match his earlier statements on the % of taxes paid. He did not take the full amount, left much on the table and can file amended returns later to further lower the amount he pays.
 
Dooble said:
Just like Nancy Pelosi's "You've gotta pass it before you see what's in it" explanation of Obamacare! YAH!!!
Click to expand...


Yup I agree...I hated the process that went on to pass obamacare...Pelosi is one of the most disgusting people in politics
 
jonny5 said:
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.
Click to expand...


It makes a difference in TRUST...you cant trust anyone in a position of authority that cant tell you what they are going to do in a clear concise way...if he cant explain it....its because its a big pile of lies and distortions to hide what they really want to do ..
 
Dwight said:
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.
Click to expand...

It probably has to do with the nature of the business. If they were just buying and selling stocks privately they would be taxed at cap gains rate so they get to do the same as an entity, though clearly what would be special would be the volume. An S-corp election, for instance, can only be made if a corporation has no more than a certain amount of income otherwise it gets treated like regular corporate income and is double-taxed.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...


No its more like I cant tell you the truth then you would know were going to shaft everyone but the rich...thats more the scenario
 
Dwight said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that it is wrong for the rich to contribute to charities because it gives tax write-offs? You would rather they send money to the government who mismanages money and makes terrible investments? Hows that Solyndra (now bankrupt) and the $120,000.00 Fiskar car (produced in Finland) working for you. Yep, we have GM but the taxpayer paid $53 per share and the current price per share is around $20 per share and GM might have to be bailed out again. Guess who gets to bail GM out?

If people can't afford to buy cars (low demand) because they are losing their jobs then there is lower demand. GM is not being held up through sub-prime lending (people who are high risk).
 
Fisher said:
It probably has to do with the nature of the business. If they were just buying and selling stocks privately they would be taxed at cap gains rate so they get to do the same as an entity, though clearly what would be special would be the volume.
Click to expand...
It isn't about buying and selling stocks. It has to do with buying whole companies, then turning around breaking the company up and selling the pieces of it nearly immediately. The profits from that are normally classified as short term gains, thus not eligible for capital gains rates (as the fundamental rational for the capital gains rate doesn't apply). But venture capitalist industry has bought (and I mean that in the literal sense) special consideration where they get to ignore that requirement for treating the income as capital gains.

It is an archetypal tax "loophole", and Romney stubbornly refuses to disown it. Why?
 
Last edited:
lonewolf said:
So you are saying that it is wrong for the rich to contribute to charities because it gives tax write-offs?
Click to expand...
No. I said no such thing anywhere, and I don't see how you could possibly get that out of the text you quoted. :shock:
 
Maybe that is a loophole he wants to close; maybe not. If he does, he looks like a hypocrite for using it; if he doesn't he looks like an opportunistic billionaire. There is no upside in that before the election would be my guess as to why.
 
Fisher said:
Maybe that is a loophole he wants to close; maybe not. If he does, he looks like a hypocrite for using it; if he doesn't he looks like an opportunistic billionaire. There is no upside in that before the election would be my guess as to why.
Click to expand...
The recipe:
1) Don't use the word "loophole", be more matter of fact that those are the rules and he was playing by the rules. Which has the benefit of not being a lie.
2) Be all repentant about it, that he didn't like that this, that the devil (IRS) made him do it. ((May or may not be a lie, but if it is one it at least has plausible deniability...at least until you get on tape going all "screw the 47%" while whoring yourself in Boca Raton for campaign donations from ultra-rich folks.))
3) "I'M GONNA FIX THIS BUSTED SYSTEM!!!!"

Because the alternative is to look like either an unrepentant hypocrite, or an ingenue bull****ter who has no intention of eliminating tax loopholes...or both of those.
 
Last edited:
Dwight said:
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.
Click to expand...

A reply like this is EXACTLY why I asked the question and it's also why the "soundbite" answer creates problems.

A married couple who live together have 2 choices on how to file a tax return. They can file a joint return or "married separate" returns. If they choose the latter then special rules apply and the vast majority of the time you come out worse off, not better. For example, if you decide to file separately any credits for dependent care go away as does EITC. If one of you itemizes then the other only gets half of the standard deduction. If you live in a community property state you have to allocate income between spouses (unless it's "sole and separate property" which is another discussion entirely). These are only some of the ramifications and generally speaking the only good time to file Married Separate (if you are still living together) is when you think your spouse is doing something illegal.

If people read (or listened to) that "soundbite" of yours odds are that they would have screwed themselves royally and possibly got into trouble with the IRS. It's EXACTLY the reason that discussing tax policy in tiny soundbites is a really bad idea.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious how the cultists try and pull one thing out of an interview they can mock/humiliate of out context

Obama is the worst president in American History by every single historical and economic measure. These High School Popularity "Haha Ryan is dumb. Romney is dumb" tactics won't work after 4 years of Obama misery and failure
 
Lutherf said:
A reply like this is EXACTLY why I asked the question and it's also why the "soundbite" answer creates problems.

A married couple who live together have 2 choices on how to file a tax return. They can file a joint return or "married separate" returns. If they choose the latter then special rules apply and the vast majority of the time you come out worse off, not better. For example, if you decide to file separately any credits for dependent care go away as does EITC. If one of you itemizes then the other only gets half of the standard deduction. If you live in a community property state you have to allocate income between spouses (unless it's "sole and separate property" which is another discussion entirely). These are only some of the ramifications and generally speaking the only good time to file Married Separate (if you are still living together) is when you think your spouse is doing something illegal.

If people read (or listened to) that "soundbite" of yours odds are that they would have screwed themselves royally and possibly got into trouble with the IRS. It's EXACTLY the reason that discussing tax policy in tiny soundbites is a really bad idea.
Click to expand...
Still, there are situations where separate filings makes sense and that is the general lay of it.

Also, general discussion of tax policy should never be confused with detailed advising about your tax situation. Even the cheapo DIY tax programs these days allow "what if" testing of things like filing joint vs separate.
 
Bronson said:
It's hilarious how the cultists try and pull one thing out of an interview they can mock/humiliate of out context

Obama is the worst president in American History by every single historical and economic measure. These High School Popularity "Haha Ryan is dumb. Romney is dumb" tactics won't work after 4 years of Obama misery and failure
Click to expand...

Actually the cultism is scary. It is amazing that so many can be so easily manipulated. Never hold any politician so high up that you can not hear what he is actually saying and that is what is happening. In their eyes Obama can do no wrong. Sad really. I am not in a cultist either, I hold no politician in that view and because I am able to hear why I will be ok no matter what administration is in. I do know that Obama is terrible for this country proven to me by his actions, policies and current results. If he were such a great president he would have something to run on rather than having to attack his opponent.

Did you ever notice that Obama only gives speeches and rarely takes questions from the press. Did you ever notice he gets irritated when someone does manage to ask him a hard question. He avoided meeting with leaders of other countries. They are above him and he can not handle their questions. He knows he can not swoon them. I just heard him down playing his debate skills. This is trying to manipulate his supporters to give him a pass on debating and having to answer hard questions. It will be nice to finally see him answer hard questions instead of softball questions.

If I believed that Obama was a great president and that he needed more time I would vote for him but he has proved to be disastrous and I will not vote for him.
 
Last edited:
Dwight said:
Still, there are situations where separate filings makes sense and that is the general lay of it.

Also, general discussion of tax policy should never be confused with detailed advising about your tax situation. Even the cheapo DIY tax programs these days allow "what if" testing of things like filing joint vs separate.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, I do this stuff for a living and the cases where it is advantageous to file separately are rare....VERY rare.

Your comments were, from a professional standpoint, egregiously misleading though, from a political standpoint, not completely untruthful. That is the crux of why, for ethical reasons, it was prudent of Ryan to NOT elaborate when prodded.
 
While rationally it makes sense, owning up would be "I was for the war before I was against the war" and we all know how that worked out for Kerry even without the millions of dollars of personal gain attached. No matter what he said, it would be reduced to an incriminating soundbite and be beamed into every living room in the country repeatedly.
 
Lutherf said:
Your comments were, from a professional standpoint, egregiously misleading though, from a political standpoint, not completely untruthful. That is the crux of why, for ethical reasons, it was prudent of Ryan to NOT elaborate when prodded.
Click to expand...
The day Ryan hangs out a sign board as a CPA, I'll buy that. Until then I, and everyone else, would do well to expect Politician Ryan to take the time to make "not completely untruthful" statements (as truthful as time allows) rather than dodge. :)
 
Dwight said:
The day Ryan hangs out a sign board as a CPA, I'll buy that. Until then I, and everyone else, would do well to expect Politician Ryan to take the time to make "not completely untruthful" statements (as truthful as time allows) rather than dodge. :)
Click to expand...

So.....half truths, misleading statements and outright bull**** by candidates for elected office is now acceptable.....not only that but preferential to an ethical and truthful answer?

No wonder Obama is still up in the polls.:doh
 
Ryan is a bit of a joke, unfortunately. He's just another right wing purist who doesn't seem to have any real interest in solving actual problems. He voted against Simpson-Bowles. He's supposed to be the Republicans budget guru, but he was invisible during the whole debt ceiling fiasco. He has yet to produce a proposal that passes the laugh test, insofar as they all demand wildly unrealistic assumptions about unemployment and GDP growth to make them add up.
 
Lutherf said:
So.....half truths, misleading statements and outright bull**** by candidates for elected office is now acceptable.....not only that but preferential to an ethical and truthful answer?
Click to expand...
Where did I say "outright bull****" should be the order of the day? Stop that, stop that right now.

Ryan didn't need to roll out a 2 hour explanation in the interview to talk about it how it is suppose to work, say provide a realistic example. He certainly didn't need more than 15 seconds of air time to say "I'll have the math sent to you by tomorrow morning"/"I'll post that math up on our website", then follow through.

The whole problem is the math isn't anywhere. The whole "soundbite" environment you rail against is something he's creating via the void of information.
 
AdamT said:
Ryan is a bit of a joke, unfortunately. He's just another right wing purist who doesn't seem to have any real interest in solving actual problems. He voted against Simpson-Bowles. He's supposed to be the Republicans budget guru, but he was invisible during the whole debt ceiling fiasco. He has yet to produce a proposal that passes the laugh test, insofar as they all demand wildly unrealistic assumptions about unemployment and GDP growth to make them add up.
Click to expand...

Cliche platitudes and emotional rhetoric detected

Geithner To Ryan On Debt: We Don't "Have A Definitive Solution To Our Long-Term Problem" | RealClearPolitics
 
Dwight said:
Where did I say "outright bull****" should be the order of the day? Stop that, stop that right now.

Ryan didn't need to roll out a 2 hour explanation in the interview to talk about it how it is suppose to work, say provide a realistic example. He certainly didn't need more than 15 seconds of air time to say "I'll have the math sent to you by tomorrow morning"/"I'll post that math up on our website", then follow through.

The whole problem is the math isn't anywhere. The whole "soundbite" environment you rail against is something he's creating via the void of information.
Click to expand...

So where do you propose to cut it off? Is "misleading" OK as long as it isn't too misleading? Who gets to decide?

Wallace asked a question which would have lead to a line of discussion that would have been mind numbing for most people and Ryan gave a quick answer then moved on to something else just as he should have. It may not have been elegant but it was a necessary move for both him and Wallace.
 
I agree, it was necessary for Ryan to not give a detailed answer or refer voters to a non-existent website containing the "plan".
 
Lutherf said:
So where do you propose to cut it off? Is "misleading" OK as long as it isn't too misleading? Who gets to decide?
Click to expand...
We do, using....and this gets to the heart of the problem...information.
Wallace asked a question which would have lead to a line of discussion that would have been mind numbing for most people and Ryan gave a quick answer then moved on to something else just as he should have. It may not have been elegant but it was a necessary move for both him and Wallace.
Click to expand...
No. Ryan could have said "I'll get that to you", and it would have fit into that interview just fine. This all has the stench of the bull**** you think you are against. Ryan isn't giving the answer anywhere.

Romney/Ryan "We've got it all worked out! It can happen!"

TPC: "Our calculations say otherwise, here they are."

Ryan: "Trust me!"

Wallace: "Show me."

Ryan: "No need for that, the math would just confuse you."


That is exactly what a dumptruck load of dodging, non-answer bull**** looks like.
 
Dwight said:
We do, using....and this gets to the heart of the problem...information.

No. Ryan could have said "I'll get that to you", and it would have fit into that interview just fine. This all has the stench of the bull**** you think you are against. Ryan isn't giving the answer anywhere.

Romney/Ryan "We've got it all worked out! It can happen!"

TPC: "Our calculations say otherwise, here they are."

Ryan: "Trust me!"

Wallace: "Show me."

Ryan: "No need for that, the math would just confuse you."


That is exactly what a dumptruck load of dodging, non-answer bull**** looks like.
Click to expand...

The whole interview is here - Fox News Sunday Interivew, Chris Wallace Exclusive With Paul Ryan - YouTube

The portion of the interview that's under discussion here begins right about the 11:30 mark. Wallace is trying to separate the tax cut from the deduction limitations and Ryan is trying to explain that it's all one plan. Wallace wants Ryan to say something to the effect of "We're cutting tax rates which, by itself, will mean decreased revenues but we're going to offset that shortfall by eliminating certain deductions". Ryan, though, keeps coming back with the "whole plan" concept which is entirely appropriate and entirely accurate.

If the plan is to reduce tax rates and eliminate certain deductions is it really fair to have that plan characterized as "You'll cut rates and it'll cost the government money!"? Hell no it isn't because that isn't the whole plan!

Now, if you really want to argue about something I would suggest that whether or not Paul Ryan has time to present his position in spreadsheet form should be the least of anyone's concerns. The important part of this interview (which seems to have been overshadowed by all the "noise") is whether the Romney/Ryan plan is materially different than the Obama plan but that, I suppose, is really fodder for a different thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom