Paul Ryan

[timm]

By the democrats? Where do you get that from? Clinton won with only 43% of the vote, compared to Obama getting 51% of the vote this time around. States that were normally solid red turned blue. Not because democrats were out voting in large numbers, but because republicans either didn't show up, or voted for Ross Perot, who stole 19% of the vote, probably mostly from republicans. Bush got a lowly 37%. I don't think you can blame that on democrats.



So you think a couple making $250k a year, year after year, doesn't have retirement in the bag? You think that isn't wealthy, even though it is in the top three percent of wage earners in this country? And lets not forget that this is the bottom cutoff. It is $250k a year and UP. Tell me, if $250k a year in income isn't rich, then what is? Do you have to make $1 million a year to be considered rich? Do you think families making tens of millions in income a year, like the Romney's, ought to be giving more than 14% back to their country?



I'm in. I'm one of the ones who will be paying more. And you know what? I don't mind! I don't consider it "neighborly." I consider it patriotic. It amazes me how republicans talk so much about patriotism, until it comes down to giving back to support the country they pretend to care so much about. Ask not what your government can do for you; ask what you can do for your government. Well, you can start by paying to support the infrastructure that makes this country so great. And if the government can use some of that money to help the less fortunate among us, then the country will be even greater for the investment. There are a lot of kids out there who could do great things for this country, if they could just get the government subsidized loans and pell grants to be able to afford an education. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Many of them would be happy just to have a plate of food at the dinner table.

Its the precedent that is set that I don't like Rich... Today, anyone 250K on up...tomorrow - we need to spend more... so lets tax more.... who do we tax? Maybe we should base it on who will get us elected??? What a premise....

I don't consider it patriotic... In fact our founding fathers would have revolted because of it. I find it 'for lack of a better idea -- how are we going to get the money so we can spend'? -- oh, lets increase taxes instead of working within a budget. I also don't believe that increasing taxes on certain individuals is fair... I was always taught to treat people like I would like to be treated.... This isn't it.

And - I always deal in real money -- not percentages.... Last year, I paid enough to the government to support a small family... Now, maybe you don't like my percentage - but guess what? I'm paying way more than someone making 50K. In fact- I pay 50% of their earnings in taxes.... All for the same benefits that our government gives us all... Based on your stats: Romney paid 14% and makes 10s of millions... So, lets say he makes 20 million.... 2.8 million in taxes for one individual - I guess isn't enough? Lets raise the taxes on dividends and interest income on those rich bastages...Oh, don't trip over all of your elderly living off of it as well... Just another line in the all ready fat tax code right?

There will always be rich... there will always be poor... That is the way of the world and the way it has been for thousands of years... Let the government spend appropriately...Let them be smart with the money.... Don't give them a blank check....

Perot won that election for Clinton... no doubt... This isn't a knock against Clinton - just that Perot was a businessman... a person that identified with business...and is closer to republican than Democrat .. in my humble opinion so he took a lot of votes from Reps in that election - no doubt. My point was the Democrats used it against the Republicans in that election...Pointed the finger across the way and said 'they raised taxes .... broke promises'... that is what I find ironic....

The problem with it is that those 'folks' making 250k (they can be called folks right?) are anywhere from 2 software engineers working in California.... to mid to upper managers in large companies...to small business owners....salespeople... Or...of course a single attorney that takes 97% of a class action ... hahaha...sorry.... The attorneys can DEFINITELY afford it!! I say we tax them more... of course... that will be passed on to the customer (i.e. middle class)... because that is the way it is in business!!

On another note --I'm just interested to see what happens to our largest employer - the health care industry - when they become less profitable.... Less profit = less jobs for your largest industry employer and in a country all ready with high unemployment all ready... I'm interested to see what happens to prices on certain goods (example: a meal out) - and the tab comes back higher because the owner is passing the cost down to the customer (the middle class by the way....).... It has always worked that way... and always will...

 

[Rich]

Its the precedent that is set that I don't like Rich... Today, anyone 250K on up...tomorrow - we need to spend more... so lets tax more.... who do we tax? Maybe we should base it on who will get us elected??? What a premise....

Precedent? That was set long ago. Really, how is this any different than it has always been? Bush won election by promising to cut taxes for the rich, which he then delivered. Obama won, in part, by promising to do the opposite. But he certainly didn't set the precedent.

I don't consider it patriotic... In fact our founding fathers would have revolted because of it.

Where do you get this silly notion? First of all, it assumes all of the founding fathers were of one mind on issues like this, when in fact there was much debate and dissension among them on such issues. Second, it ignores actual recorded history.

Jefferson was openly pro-progressive taxation. As he said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” Thomas Paine was also a vocal advocate of the progressive income tax. The country passed a progressive estate tax in 1797. I don't recall reading about the founding fathers revolting on that one.

Even George Washington wasn’t anti-tax. General Washington levied the first tax in the new republic, the Whiskey Tax, and when people rebelled, he used the military to enforce tax policy. To quote Washington's farewell address:

To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

So it seems your illusion that the founding fathers would have revolted is just a lot of empty hyperbole, and not based on a factual analysis of their true beliefs and actions.

And - I always deal in real money -- not percentages.... Last year, I paid enough to the government to support a small family... Now, maybe you don't like my percentage - but guess what? I'm paying way more than someone making 50K. In fact- I pay 50% of their earnings in taxes.... All for the same benefits that our government gives us all... Based on your stats: Romney paid 14% and makes 10s of millions... So, lets say he makes 20 million.... 2.8 million in taxes for one individual - I guess isn't enough? Lets raise the taxes on dividends and interest income on those rich bastages...Oh, don't trip over all of your elderly living off of it as well... Just another line in the all ready fat tax code right?

You forget that we are not really talking about raising taxes on those "rich bastages." We are actually talking about reversing favorable tax cuts that were given to them under Bush. From your statement, it sounds like you think everyone should pay the same total amount of tax, regardless of the income they make. I can't begin to explain how silly a notion that is. In order to be workable, there has to be some progression to the tax code, where those who earn more pay more. And I can think of no reason why dividend or interest income should receive some special tax cut vs. salary income. The elderly should pay reasonable taxes on their income as well, just as the wealthy doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives.

There will always be rich... there will always be poor... That is the way of the world and the way it has been for thousands of years... Let the government spend appropriately...Let them be smart with the money.... Don't give them a blank check....

Yes, there will always be rich and poor. But the wealth gap between them is widening now as it never has before. Which is dangerous. Many a revolution have occurred because of a huge wealth gap among the people. I have no problem with enforcing appropriate government spending, and I am not advocating a blank check. I am advocating reasonable taxation policies like we had in this country fifteen years ago. It really wasn't that long ago, and oh, by the way, we actually balanced the budget back then.

of course... that will be passed on to the customer (i.e. middle class)... because that is the way it is in business!!

BS. Personal income taxes are not "passed on to the customer" in a business. Business just doesn't work that way. Personal income is taxed. Income results from salary and/or taking profits from the business. Business pricing takes into account business costs before profit is considered, among a host of other things. It doesn't take into account the levels of tax levied on people's salaries or on the ultimate profit the business generates.

On another note --I'm just interested to see what happens to our largest employer - the health care industry - when they become less profitable.... Less profit = less jobs for your largest industry employer and in a country all ready with high unemployment all ready... I'm interested to see what happens to prices on certain goods (example: a meal out) - and the tab comes back higher because the owner is passing the cost down to the customer (the middle class by the way....).... It has always worked that way... and always will...

Your comment first assumes the health care industry will become less profitable because taxes are raised on those earning $250k a year or more, which has no factual support and is total poppycock. And again, as far as your tab at the local restaurant, business don't raise prices simply because the owner's personal income tax burden went up. I certainly don't remember prices at the local restaurants dropping precipitously when the Bush tax cuts were enacted. You conflate concepts that are totally unrelated.

 

[twich54]

You wanna talk about where all our debt has come from. Fine. Watch this video, and then let's talk . . . using actual facts and real math.

To further 'look at the numbers'...................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9Okak

 

[Kevin]

You had a guy running his campaign, Jesse Jackson Jr., from the Mayo Clinic for the past 4 months because he is being treated for bipolar, has at least one current federal investigation against him (I think it is actually two) and yet he wins reelection. If you are in a hospital for months due to bipolar, then that is a really serious condition. To win reelection under those circumstances, certainly tells you how easily it was for Obama to pick up a portion of his vote.

On taxes, I said it a couple of years back and still say it now. Raise them. You are mainly raising them on those that live in strong democratic strongholds. The majority making over $250,000 a year includes mainly those in the financial industry, lawyers, medical professions and celebrities. Unless used to create government jobs, which wouldn't be popular, it probably won't help the economy and may even stifle growth. The main thing it would do, is take away Obama's main argument over the past 4 years, which is the rich don't pay their fare share. It will be hard for him to blame Bush when he is in his 2nd term, and now you have taken the tax issue away. What will he blaming at that time? Who held office in the prior term? That would be interesting.

 

[eknuds01]

You had a guy running his campaign, Jesse Jackson Jr., from the Mayo Clinic for the past 4 months because he is being treated for bipolar, has at least one current federal investigation against him (I think it is actually two) and yet he wins reelection. If you are in a hospital for months due to bipolar, then that is a really serious condition. To win reelection under those circumstances, certainly tells you how easily it was for Obama to pick up a portion of his vote.

On taxes, I said it a couple of years back and still say it now. Raise them. You are mainly raising them on those that live in strong democratic strongholds. The majority making over $250,000 a year includes mainly those in the financial industry, lawyers, medical professions and celebrities. Unless used to create government jobs, which wouldn't be popular, it probably won't help the economy and may even stifle growth. The main thing it would do, is take away Obama's main argument over the past 4 years, which is the rich don't pay their fare share. It will be hard for him to blame Bush when he is in his 2nd term, and now you have taken the tax issue away. What will he blaming at that time? Who held office in the prior term? That would be interesting.

Interesting take, Kevin. Hit 'em where it counts--the wallet (?). But I also wonder since our congress can't get anything done and if the Bush cuts simply expire I guess Obama ends up getting a larger tax increase than he plans for and this also impacts almost everybody. I think my taxes go up 10% and that's pretty substantial if you ask me.

Is it me or is taking in an extra $100-150 billion a year going to make much of a difference (especially in the near term)? If the debt is north of a trillion annually, wouldn't you need some pretty drastic reductions in spending to bring us closer to a balanced budget? I know various plans have been proposed (Simpson-Bowles) and maybe some other ideas over the last few months or years. I have to admit I don't follow politics (especially the side that deals with taxation and economics) very closely but if there aren't huge reductions to the 4 sacred cows (defense, social security, medicare and medicaid) I don't see how the much progress is going to made even over long stretches of time (say 10 - 15 years).

 

[asindc]

Its the precedent that is set that I don't like Rich... Today, anyone 250K on up...tomorrow - we need to spend more... so lets tax more.... who do we tax? Maybe we should base it on who will get us elected??? What a premise....

I don't consider it patriotic... In fact our founding fathers would have revolted because of it. I find it 'for lack of a better idea -- how are we going to get the money so we can spend'? -- oh, lets increase taxes instead of working within a budget. I also don't believe that increasing taxes on certain individuals is fair... I was always taught to treat people like I would like to be treated.... This isn't it.

The founders of this country threatened revolt for having to pay taxes while not being allowed full representation, very much like the residents of the District of Columbia today. The issue wasn't having to pay taxes, it was what they were getting for their taxes.

Deciding how much to tax and what to spend it on is what we pay our elected officials to do. Millions of our fellow citizens have not gotten the full benefit of having paid taxes since the dawn of the republic, in some cases blatantly so. There is a difference, however, between tax fairness and gross injustice through legislative, judicial, and executive malfeasance. That you and I pay more in actual tax dollars in a given year than Mitt Romney is something that needs to stop, IMO, for example.

By the way, if health care industry executives have to make due with just one 50' yacht or just two residences if the trade-off is that more people can afford health care insurance, I'm all for that. I would not consider that a gross injustice in the least. You might disagree, however.

 

[asindc]

You had a guy running his campaign, Jesse Jackson Jr., from the Mayo Clinic for the past 4 months because he is being treated for bipolar, has at least one current federal investigation against him (I think it is actually two) and yet he wins reelection. If you are in a hospital for months due to bipolar, then that is a really serious condition. To win reelection under those circumstances, certainly tells you how easily it was for Obama to pick up a portion of his vote.

On taxes, I said it a couple of years back and still say it now. Raise them. You are mainly raising them on those that live in strong democratic strongholds. The majority making over $250,000 a year includes mainly those in the financial industry, lawyers, medical professions and celebrities. Unless used to create government jobs, which wouldn't be popular, it probably won't help the economy and may even stifle growth. The main thing it would do, is take away Obama's main argument over the past 4 years, which is the rich don't pay their fare share. It will be hard for him to blame Bush when he is in his 2nd term, and now you have taken the tax issue away. What will he blaming at that time? Who held office in the prior term? That would be interesting.

You mean to say it won't work like it did when taxes were raised in 1993?

 

[eknuds01]

You mean to say it won't work like it did when taxes were raised in 1993?

Hi Anthony -

Long time, no talk. How are you doing in DC?

Quick question - how do you know that taxes, alone, were the driving force behind the economic success in the early to mid 90s? I ask because almost every time I try to get into anything economic, it's just very complicated and taxes are just part (albeit an important one) of the equation. I am willing to bet we will find many periods where there are conflicting results --> taxes are high, we have periods of time where the economy went gang busters (and vice versa). Same thing when we reverse the situation (probably can find periods where we had lots of growth/recession when taxes are low).

 

[eknuds01]

To further 'look at the numbers'...................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9Okak

Interesting, Dave. The shear size of the problem and the magnitude of the numbers are just amazing (if not depressing).

 

[asindc]

Hi Anthony -

Long time, no talk. How are you doing in DC?

Quick question - how do you know that taxes, alone, were the driving force behind the economic success in the early to mid 90s? I ask because almost every time I try to get into anything economic, it's just very complicated and taxes are just part (albeit an important one) of the equation. I am willing to bet we will find many periods where there are conflicting results --> taxes are high, we have periods of time where the economy went gang busters (and vice versa). Same thing when we reverse the situation (probably can find periods where we had lots of growth/recession when taxes are low).

Doing fine, Eric! Good question. It is probably more accurate to say that raising taxes certainly did not hinder economic growth, as the computer revolution that shortly followed is prime indication.

 

[Rich]

Is it me or is taking in an extra $100-150 billion a year going to make much of a difference (especially in the near term)? If the debt is north of a trillion annually, wouldn't you need some pretty drastic reductions in spending to bring us closer to a balanced budget? . . . I don't see how the much progress is going to made even over long stretches of time (say 10 - 15 years).

Exactly! We have to raise our taxes to a reasonable level AND cut our spending to reasonable levels, while at the same time maintaining economic growth. Unfortunately, for the last twelve years we have been doing just the opposite. We have drastically lowered taxes, drastically increased spending, and had not one but two recessions, the second of which was almost another great depression. So the answer is yes, we have to do all of those things, and yes, it will take a very long time to get back in the black. It took twelve years to go from a balanced annual budget with too much long term debt to where we are now, a large annual budget deficit with astronomical long term debt. And it will take probably double that amount of time to get back to where we were. Now you can begin to understand just how disastrous the Bush years were for this country, and why we are still blaming him for where we are today.

how do you know that taxes, alone, were the driving force behind the economic success in the early to mid 90s? I ask because almost every time I try to get into anything economic, it's just very complicated and taxes are just part (albeit an important one) of the equation. I am willing to bet we will find many periods where there are conflicting results --> taxes are high, we have periods of time where the economy went gang busters (and vice versa). Same thing when we reverse the situation (probably can find periods where we had lots of growth/recession when taxes are low).

The point isn't that higher taxes were the driving force behind economic success. The point is that we achieved economic success even though we had high taxes. And the past twelve years, we have had dismal economic success even with low taxes. Which totally exposes the fallacy constantly spouted by republicans that higher taxes = bad economy and lower taxes = good economy. This tired out argument has been soundly proven false over the last twenty years, yet you continue to hear them spout it. The point is that we must raise taxes and lower spending across the board in order to achieve fiscal solvency. The republicans are completely intransigent, refusing to consider raising taxes or reducing spending on the military. They only want to cut spending on social programs. This ridiculous closed mindset has got to change for the good of the country. Both parties have to give and we have to raise revenue and cut spending across the board, as the Bipartisan commission studying this issue recommended. Honestly, I think maybe the best thing that could happen to our country long term is that they can't agree to anything, and we drive right over this looming fiscal cliff. Yes, it will send us back into recession in the short term. But it achieves all of the things we really need to do. Why not bite the bullet and just do it?

 

[eknuds01]

Doing fine, Eric! Good question. It is probably more accurate to say that raising taxes certainly did not hinder economic growth, as the computer revolution that shortly followed is prime indication.

Anthony -

Do you live in DC? I want to say you work there, but I do not know if you live inside 495. I ask because I am thinking about relocating sometime next year to DC or NoVA. Glad to see you are doing well! We should meet up sometime when you aren't busy!

 

[asindc]

I live just inside the Beltway in PG County. PM your phone number.

 

[Kevin]

The point isn't that higher taxes were the driving force behind economic success. The point is that we achieved economic success even though we had high taxes. And the past twelve years, we have had dismal economic success even with low taxes. Which totally exposes the fallacy constantly spouted by republicans that higher taxes = bad economy and lower taxes = good economy. This tired out argument has been soundly proven false over the last twenty years, yet you continue to hear them spout it.

What has been proven Rich? We have had a bad economy the last 12 years with lower tax rates. But what proof do you have that it wouldn't have been even worse if the taxes were higher? Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the economy got better, but if I recall, that was just about the beginning of the whole dot com bubble that really took off a few years later. Could the economy have even been better if taxes were not raised? Everyone mentions tax rates in the 1950's, but fail to mention that at the same time Europe and Asia were still putting themselves back together from having half their country sides being blown to smithereens. Without a control group to do a direct comparison, with everything being equal except for higher or lower taxes for one of those groups, it is impossible to say that anything is true or false. Should I be able to say for sure that California and Illinois have worse financial problems, compared to the national average, because they have higher tax rates? I can say that is my opinion, but I have no proof of it being a fact.

 

[Kevin]

That you and I pay more in actual tax dollars in a given year than Mitt Romney is something that needs to stop, IMO, for example.

I have no idea what you are paying in taxes, but are you saying that you pay more than 3 million a year? I don't think an excutive giving up one yacht is going to do a thing for the guy who makes a living doing finish carpentry and cabinetry on those yachts. I use that example because I have a friend who was doing just that in Wanchese, NC. With the economy tanking, his job left, along with many others there, because no one is currently making many nice boats. I can bet he would rather have his old job back and pay for his own health insurance.

 

[twich54]

Exactly! We have to raise our taxes to a reasonable level AND cut our spending to reasonable levels, while at the same time maintaining economic growth. Unfortunately, for the last twelve years we have been doing just the opposite.

ahhhh...hhha.....lets see ....12 years, thats 8 with the wacko right and 4 with the wacko left......so Rich, you being the 'lib left' represents 33 1/3 (analog talk, you wouldn't understand)....check back with me in '14 and we'll see how Obam's doing(45 by then, analog talk again)...................

yes I was over served tonite.......God I love Martini's !!!

 

[Rich]

ahhhh...hhha.....lets see ....12 years, thats 8 with the wacko right and 4 with the wacko left......so Rich, you being the 'lib left' represents 33 1/3 (analog talk, you wouldn't understand)....check back with me in '14 and we'll see how Obam's doing(45 by then, analog talk again)...................

yes I was over served tonite.......God I love Martini's !!!

Oh, I quite agree with you Dave. Obama should have let the Bush tax cuts expire when he had the chance, instead of extending them two more years. Unfortunately, with the economic meltdown he inherited, and an intransigent house, I think he felt his hands were tied in that regard. It also has taken most of his first term to wind down the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't just cut and run, you know. It takes time to wind down a war, much less two. And I suppose he probably could have obliterated the TSA, but then republicans would have had a screaming fit. So yes, during much of Obama's first term, he has been saddled with the poor policy choices of the Bush administration: too much spending on wars and bureaucracy, with too little revenue stream.

 

[Rich]

What has been proven Rich?

What has been proven, Kevin? Simply that we can have screaming economic growth, even with higher taxes. And that even with lower taxes, we can have absolutely dismal growth. Which is the opposite of what most republicans constantly preach.

 

[Kevin]

What has been proven, Kevin? Simply that we can have screaming economic growth, even with higher taxes. And that even with lower taxes, we can have absolutely dismal growth. Which is the opposite of what most republicans constantly preach.

Yes, given the right conditions, lots of things can happen. I could go to casino tonight and win a bunch of money, but I don't think I'll bet on it.

 

[Rich]

Yes, given the right conditions, lots of things can happen. I could go to casino tonight and win a bunch of money, but I don't think I'll bet on it.

Some reading for you, Kevin: Do Tax Cuts Lead to Economic Growth?

“At the level of taxes we’ve been at the last couple decades and the magnitude of the changes we’ve had, it’s hard to make the argument that tax rates have a big effect on economic growth,” Mr. Marron said. Similarly, a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that, over the past 65 years, changes in the top tax rate “do not appear correlated with economic growth.”

Over the past 65 years, changes in the top tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. I'll bet on that.