Paul Ryan unveils $4.6 trillion budget plan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Muscle Master, Mar 12, 2013.

  1. Muscle Master macrumors 6502a

    Muscle Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #1
    Discuss
     
  2. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #2
    Simplifying the tax code is always a win. Idk about the brackets or how that works though.

    I heard something good last night, and that is the issue we're having is people keep trying to lump in 1000 different things into one bill, instead of putting it into one manageable chunk that could get real work and compromise done.
     
  3. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #3
    I'm all for simplifying the tax code. I'm all for getting rid of "loopholes" (they are deductions when "regular" folks want to use them....but when a rich person uses them they are "loopholes"....but whatever) and having straight forward income brackets where all income in treated equal.

    But that would upset the status quo, which has about as much chance of happening as them repealing the ACA.
     
  4. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #4
    I think you have to consider the purchasing power when taxing people. I don't think you can tax somebody that makes $30,000/year at the same rate as somebody who makes $70,000.
     
  5. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #5
    The idea is those deductions are supposed to help those regular people financially. They become loopholes because our brilliant lawmakers allow the rich to take advantage of them as well despite them not needing the help financially.....
     
  6. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #6
    I just can't get on board with that. If a deduction is there....everyone should be able to use it. If you don't want folks to use those "loopholes" then get rid of them and lower rates across the board to compensate.
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    Considering it includes a repeal of the healthcare law it's pretty clear that Ryan isn't actually wanting it to pass. It looks like another attempt by the Republicans to put forward something that they know has no chance of passing so they can claim that they are doing something.
     
  8. bassfingers macrumors 6502

    bassfingers

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #8
    I'm down for a lot of that.

    However, that 3.4% guess is too optimistic. We could bring that down by decreasing military spending. Is there really a need to increase that?

    People need to get on board with adjusting medicare. My only guess is that misinformation is the only thing protecting the current medicare system
     
  9. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #9
    It has little to do with financial status. "Loophole" has become too much of a buzz word. The issue is whether something accomplishes its intended purpose. You couldn't really eliminate all deductions when it comes to taxes. Would you have wholesalers taxed on the basis of their gross receipts? Would you eliminate the ability to claim medical expenses when they exceed a certain percentage of total annual income?
     
  10. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #10
    Yep. If it were up to me all deductions and credits would be gone. We'd start tax rates somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5% and gradually work up to a top end of 15% or so and tax all sources of income the same.
     
  11. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #11
    A complicated tax code exists for the same reason ridiculous amounts of redundant regulations and government programs/departments exist....

    Control.

    Until the jack-knobs in Washington D.C. decide to return control back to the people, we'll continue to experience the oppression a big, terribly bureaucratic government provides.
     
  12. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #12
    As even the people interviewing him are saying, Ryan's plan will never pass. Obama care will never be repealed. More proof that Republicans are all talk about compromise. Trying to pass a non-starter budget.
     
  13. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #13
    The wholesaler example was to say that gross receipts taxes are effectively much higher percentages of actual income on businesses with lower margins. Some counties tax this way, but the actual percentage is industry based. Even then it's still kind of a mess, but local tax isn't that much relative to other things. The other thing is that you're using arbitrary numbers here. There isn't any math that really shows this would work. Unfortunately we have what we have today. It isn't bad enough to inspire truly drastic rewriting of the tax code.
     
  14. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #14
    What we have today is absolutely bad enough. Our politicians in charge use the tax code as a wedge issue between voters every time they get a chance. Republicans tell high earners that they are trying to protect them from the money grubbing Democrats while the Dems turn around and tell low income earners that they are trying to wrangle more and more out the Ebeneezer Scrooge Republicans to increase the social safety net. The country gets more and more divided by the day and it is happening along lines of economic class.

    Who knows if my numbers would work...so lets get some economists on this and let them determine what numbers would. The longer we wait the wider the divide becomes in this country.
     
  15. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #15
    I don't believe he means it to pass....that is simply the Republicans' starting point for budget negotiations. If Democrats would pass a budget (haven't since 2009), we could see what the differences are and where they might be reconciled....

    Of course, this all relies on the assumption that anyone in D.C. has some semblance of mental acuity....which is highly debatable....
     
  16. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #16
    Get back to me when "regular" folks are constructing shell corporations based in the Bahamas to funnel their income through.

    ----------

    Right, which is caused by INCREASING INCOME INEQUALITY.
     
  17. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #17
    Its baffling people don't realize the class warfare tactics Democrats use to gain popular support.....

    Republicans are honest about their agenda. They want to cut taxes, raise defense spending, make abortion illegal and so forth....whether you agree with any of it or not, their cards are on the table.

    Democrats are so much more deceptive. The guise is "helping the middle class and the elderly", when its really all about more government control.....

    Both parties are filled with idiotic bureaucrats who care about nothing more than being re-elected and collecting their lifetime paycheck of $200k a year....

    Until the American people wake up and realize their being played by this ridiculous government (and the mainstream media), we'll continue to have the song and dance we have currently. The only problem is, it requires people to actually think instead of make blanket generalizations based on lies/half-truths....

    ----------

    There will ALWAYS be income inequality.....unless we become something other than a capitalist democratic-republic

    Taking more money away from rich people to stop the gap from getting bigger isn't the way to do it either....you've got a lot of people making decisions on what is "fair" and "equal" who have no business doing so.....

    You don't take from the rich to GIVE to the poor.....you give the poor a job.
     
  18. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #18
    No it's not. It's because of a PR war between two competing political parties that tell you that your problems in life are because of someone else and this other party is the one working to see that doesn't improve.
     
  19. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #19
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

    "For the late 2000s, the United States had the 4th highest measure of income inequality out of the 34 OECD countries measured, after taxes and transfers had been taken into account."

    That's all well and good, but it's INCREASING. And we all know what happens when it increases to extremes (French Revolution, etc).

    ----------

    No, you don't allow the rich to amass so much wealth that there's none left over to give the poor the OPPORTUNITY to work up the ladder (via massive public education spending).

    You act as if the status quo is just, that the income was "distributed" correctly in the first place. It wasn't.
     
  20. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #20
    Contradicting yourself a bit there?


    That would probably be a good place to start cause it's quite obvious that a purely capitalist system doesn't work. A system that values profit over human life is a crap system.
     
  21. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #21


    I'm not saying there isn't income inequality....there absolutely is. I'm just saying our tax system is not the way to try and correct it.
     
  22. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #22
    The tax system isn't there to correct income inequality. Where did this even come from?

    It's there to provide the government with the revenue it needs to function. How else are we supposed to pay for infrastructure, police, fire, education, defense, etc?

    The Democrats aren't trying to increase taxes to "correct income inequality", they want to raise taxes because the government doesn't have enough money to pay for itself. Most Democrats just feel that people who are in a position to contribute a little bit more should contribute a little bit more.
     
  23. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #23
    Nope, only that Republican's methods of "control" are much more apparent.



    I'd love to hear of some alternatives that have worked better....given the fact that, while in a crappy situation, the US is the most prosperous nation on the planet.

    ----------

    Right.....so what's all this about the "fair share" and the rich having too much money?

    If you can't buy the things you are buying, what is your first instinct? Is it "Man I need to go get another job so I can continue to buy stuff." Or is it "Maybe I should cut back on some of the things I don't need to buy.".....

    You aren't seriously telling me there isn't a vast amount of financial waste in our government are you??

    ----------

    Who's job is it to "distribute" wealth?

    No one "gave" my dad his wealth (perhaps our capitalist economy did, as it allowed him to work hard and be successful).....he's 67, works and recently sold his multi-million dollar company to his employees.

    He grew up poor, flunked out of high-school, joined the Navy, lived in a one-room apartment the size of my office cubicle and did jobs ranging from McDonald's fry-cook to radio DJ until he finally entered the cable business as a salesman and ultimately began his own company and built it where it is today.

    What right does anyone else have to take MORE from someone like my dad and give to someone poor? My dad gives away hundreds of thousands of dollars to different charities each year....yet he's supposed to give the government MORE money in order to "pay his fair share" when the problem isn't a lack of revenue, its a spending problem.

    If I came to him and said "I'm out of money, can I have some?" and he looked down and saw a Rolex on my wrist and an iPhone in my pocket, he'd slap me silly and tell me to figure it out.....

    As I asked another poster, do you SERIOUSLY think there isn't excess spending (and a whole lot of it) in our government???
     
  24. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #24
    Democrats generally don't push for extra revenue because they want to build a bunch of bridges or put more cops in Chicago. They do it because they want to increase the size and scope of government programs geared towards low income families.

    And the people that make more do contribute more. And I'm not arguing that they shouldn't.
     
  25. zioxide, Mar 12, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013

    zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #25
    The US might have been the "most prosperous nation on the planet" in the past but we are falling fast and will soon be passed by China.

    A hybrid capitalist-socialist system would be the ideal solution. It works quite well in many European countries. Some things (like health care) shouldn't be run with entities that have to keep a profit margin. That's why our cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP is double that of most European countries. UHC would be one way to save us billions of dollars in the long run.


    Where did any democrat actually say this?

    I don't think you're going to find anyone who would try to claim there isn't waste.

    But why doesn't Congress cut this waste then? Why are they more concerned with cutting people's social security and medicare benefits? The people who are in line for these benefits (like your dad you mention) payed in to these systems their entire working lives with the guarantee that these systems would be there for their retirement, and now Congress wants to change that? That's ********.

    The fact remains that our infrastructure is falling apart in this country and it needs to be addressed ASAP. It's going to keep hurting the economy more and more if we don't start fixing this soon.

    I'm all for making cuts to save money, but they need to be made in the right area. Our modern technology could cut tons of waste from many government agencies and save us billions of dollars but it will also cost us to lose thousands of jobs. We also spend waaaaaaaaaay too much money on the military so many cuts need to be made there. We need to cut things like that and invest more in education and infrastructure improvement to actually grow our economy (which will help everyone in the long run).

    Unfortunately Congress and their 12% (yeah you read that right) approval rating can't agree on anything so none of this will ever happen.

    We're on a downward spiral and it's not going to end until we go down the drain...

    And this is why, although I lean democratic, can't stand either of the political parties in Washington. Neither of them have the best interests of the country in mind. We can clearly see that with their 12% approval rating.

    If we invested in more and better education programs and public works infrastructure improvement, we could help out both low-income people and the country in general. Instead of handing them welfare money for nothing, they'd be getting paid to fix our roads and bridges that are falling apart, or going through an education program that would give them the ability to find a high-skilled job. We have millions of jobs in this country where employers can't find any employees that would be qualified. All of these things would also help boost economic growth in the long term too, so the entire country would benefit.

    I think a lot of this is what President Obama wants to do, but he obviously has no support whatsoever on the right and there's many on the left who don't agree with all his ideas either.

    Unfortunately the way our government is currently structured there's no way this is changing anytime soon. Not as long as the status quo remains in Washington.

    We should limit politicians to a single two-year term or something.
     

Share This Page