Ryan’s Roadmap Loses $2 Trillion In Revenue, 90% Of Americans Would Pay Higher Taxes

[boutons_deux]

– Federal taxes would be lower for the richest 10 percent, and higher for all other income groups, than they would be if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.

– The bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would pay about $1,700 more, on average, than they would if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.

– The richest one percent would pay about $211,300 less on average than they would if President Obama’s proposals were enacted.

– The poorest 20 percent would pay 12.3 percent of their income more than what they would pay under the President’s proposal, while the richest one percent would pay 15 percent of their income less than they would pay under the President’s proposal.

This shift in tax burden not only would force the middle- and lower-classes to pony up far more than the rich, but it would also result in the government collecting $2 trillion less over a decade than it otherwise would have. “It’s difficult to design a tax plan that will lose $2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more. But Congressman Ryan has met that daunting challenge,”

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/09/ryan-budget-ctj/

[Wild Cobra]

Damn liberal crybabies.

Everyone needs to pay taxes. The rich do pay too much. Without a stake in how tax dollars are spent, we continue to get voters who don't care how much others are taxed.

We need more tax payers. Not more taxes.

[baseline bum]

In other words, the wealth inequality in this nation isn't polarized enough yet.

[Wild Cobra]

In other words, the wealth inequality in this nation isn't polarized enough yet.
It shouldn't be polarizing. Those of little income should strive to have more rather than hating those who have more. Jealousy is not healthy.

[baseline bum]

It shouldn't be polarizing. Those of little income should strive to have more rather than hating those who have more. Jealousy is not healthy.

Wealth inequality shouldn't be polarizing? That's the fucking definition of wealth inequality. :lol

[DMX7]

You think this is all about jealousy, WC?

I'm really at a loss for words to describe how stupid you are.

[Wild Cobra]

You think this is all about jealousy, WC?

I'm really at a loss for words to describe how stupid you are.
Well, explain to me then who does the polarizing. It's not the right. We contend we need more tax payers. Most of us contend that everyone should pay taxes, and have those taxes subject to the policies that our elected officials have control over. Control in a way that everyone is treated equal, and that you don't have "special rights" that allow 40%+ of the population not to pay any income tax.

It's this special right not to pay taxes that's wrong. It creates no fiscal responsibility in the people's vote for who they send to office.

[DMX7]

Well, explain to me then who does the polarizing. It's not the right. We contend we need more tax payers. Most of us contend that everyone should pay taxes, and have those taxes subject to the policies that our elected officials have control over. Control in a way that everyone is treated equal, and that you don't have "special rights" that allow 40%+ of the population not to pay any income tax.

It's this special right not to pay taxes that's wrong. It creates no fiscal responsibility in the people's vote for who they send to office.

Give me an example of what you're saying. Are you saying that someone who is poor and doesn't pay federal income tax is going to vote for someone who supports social programs that they need just because they aren't paying for it?

Well... guess what. If you take more money away from someone who is already poor, you really think that person is suddenly going to be against things like that when they now need those programs even more as a result of having even less money?

[Nbadan]

I see where wing-nuts are going here....they want to take away the right to vote in national elections people who don't pay federal income taxes....the ultimate disenfranchisement...

[Spurminator]

The Right used to be against ANY income tax for anyone. What happened to those guys?

[baseline bum]

Well, explain to me then who does the polarizing. It's not the right.

:lmao

The wealth inequality is the polarization. As in you have all the money at one pole and all the people at the other. And your solution is to widen the chasm farther?

[Nbadan]

:lmao

The wealth inequality is the polarization. As in you have all the money at one pole and all the people at the other. And your solution is to widen the chasm farther?

Seriously, this is what we're looking at for the next two years at least...

[DMX7]

No surprise.

[ElNono]

Damn liberal crybabies.

Everyone needs to pay taxes. The rich do pay too much. Without a stake in how tax dollars are spent, we continue to get voters who don't care how much others are taxed.

We need more tax payers. Not more taxes.

I never understood why do you care how much the rich pay, after describing yourself as a 'peasant'?
Do you think the rich are going to throw you a bone or something?

[DMX7]

I never understood why do you care how much the rich pay, after describing yourself as a 'peasant'?
Do you think the rich are going to throw you a bone or something?


Actually, he describes himself as a pheasant which also explains a lot.

[Winehole23]

Ruling out defense, veterans and entitlements leaves what, about 20% of the budget? Those aren't broad based cuts, and so far, specificity is lacking. All we have at this point is numerical targets, really.

[Winehole23]

GOP leaders (Boehner, Ryan) are already backing off on those.

[Wild Cobra]

Give me an example of what you're saying. Are you saying that someone who is poor and doesn't pay federal income tax is going to vote for someone who supports social programs that they need just because they aren't paying for it?
Yes. Absolutely.

Well... guess what. If you take more money away from someone who is already poor, you really think that person is suddenly going to be against things like that when they now need those programs even more as a result of having even less money?
Not completely. I only expect it to temper their vote about politicians who wish to raise taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

The wealth inequality is the polarization. As in you have all the money at one pole and all the people at the other. And your solution is to widen the chasm farther?
Bullshit. It's idiots like you who are jealous, who make it an issue, and polarizing.

[Wild Cobra]

I never understood why do you care how much the rich pay, after describing yourself as a 'peasant'?
Do you think the rich are going to throw you a bone or something?
Stop misinterpreting my obvious play on words.

The elitists see us a peasants. Not me.

I don't care how much the rich make, I only see it unfair that they get taxed at a higher rate, when they already pay more because they make more. Isn't that fact enough for your side?

[baseline bum]

Bullshit. It's idiots like you who are jealous, who make it an issue, and polarizing.

Over your head again even when explained like I was talking to a third grader?

[baseline bum]

It's a good thing you don't know any math or physics since you'd go nuts screaming liberal jealousy every time you opened a complex analysis or E&M book and reflexively applied the wingnut definition for poles and polarization.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So now wC advocates bigger deficits..hmm ok

[baseline bum]

WC is a stubborn child who isn't worth talking too. He's the wingnut mouse, but at least with mouse it just seems to be an act to effectively troll people.

[George Gervin's Afro]

if you make more you pay more. everytime i get a raise i pay more taxes

[Wild Cobra]

if you make more you pay more. everytime i get a raise i pay more taxes
Duh...

No shit Sherlock. I said that, and it was within my point, but I guess you are too daft to understand. My point is you shouldn't also have to pay a higher percentage. The rich are already paying more just because they make more.

[boutons_deux]

"if you make more you pay more"

Until you get up to the super rich, where Warren Buffet and friends pay under 20%

Rigging the tax code through over complications and special-interest loopholes/deductions that are barred from the lower 90% because of the legal cost barriers is fundamental to the VRWC hoarding insane amounts of wealth, while the lower 4 quintiles pay a higher percentage, while their working hours get longer and their real income stagnates or decreases.

It will be amusing and digusting, as always, to hear Ryan's lies, slander, and distortions in his response to SOTU.

While dishonestly parading around like some kind of tri-corn-hatted revolutionary to overthrow govt and Take Our Country Back, his tax plan is nothing but handing more wealth to the super-wealthy while fucking over everybody else.

America is truly dumb to keep falling for these Repug assholes' lies and snake oil.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Duh...

No shit Sherlock. I said that, and it was within my point, but I guess you are too daft to understand. My point is you shouldn't also have to pay a higher percentage. The rich are already paying more just because they make more.

who says they shouldn't?

[jack sommerset]

if you make more you pay more. everytime i get a raise i pay more taxes

LOL@you even having a job!

[scott]

.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL@you even having a job!

whoops,.. now you look an even bigger dumbass with your posts referring to me taking handouts. I do quite well for myself dummy..

[Wild Cobra]

"if you make more you pay more"

Until you get up to the super rich, where Warren Buffet and friends pay under 20%


But that's not under the "income tax" tables, idiot. There should only be one income tax level. talking about capital gains, ond other taxation cannot be used as an excuse to want top wage earners to pay a marginal rate of 39.6% federal tax.

[Spurminator]

There is only one income tax rate... per range of income. The rich pay the same taxes on the first $80K they make as everyone else.

[ElNono]

Stop misinterpreting my obvious play on words.

The elitists see us a peasants. Not me.

I don't think I misinterpreted anything, nor misrepresented your comment.
Maybe you don't know what a peasant is?

From Dictionary.com: a coarse, unsophisticated, boorish, uneducated person of little financial means.

There's obviously social class and financial connotations in the term.


I don't care how much the rich make, I only see it unfair that they get taxed at a higher rate, when they already pay more because they make more. Isn't that fact enough for your side?

And my question had nothing to do with how much they make, nor any sides. My question was:

I never understood why do you care how much the rich pay, after describing yourself as a 'peasant'?
Do you think the rich are going to throw you a bone or something?

Now, I see that your reason is of that of some perceived unfairness. I still don't understand how that unfairness applies you at all. But that's ok I guess.

You don't think the rich are part of the 'elitist' social class you mention above?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think I misinterpreted anything, nor misrepresented your comment.
Maybe you don't know what a peasant is?

From Dictionary.com: a coarse, unsophisticated, boorish, uneducated person of little financial means.

There's obviously social class and financial connotations in the term.



And my question had nothing to do with how much they make, nor any sides. My question was:

I never understood why do you care how much the rich pay, after describing yourself as a 'peasant'?
Do you think the rich are going to throw you a bone or something?

Now, I see that your reason is of that of some perceived unfairness. I still don't understand how that unfairness applies you at all. But that's ok I guess.

You don't think the rich are part of the 'elitist' social class you mention above?
Go fuck yourself.

You are either intentionally misinterpreting what I already explained once, or are being a complete ass.

[ElNono]

Go fuck yourself.

You are either intentionally misinterpreting what I already explained once, or are being a complete ass.

I'll take that as an "I don't know".

[Koolaid_Man]

Well, explain to me then who does the polarizing. It's not the right. We contend we need more tax payers. Most of us contend that everyone should pay taxes, and have those taxes subject to the policies that our elected officials have control over. Control in a way that everyone is treated equal, and that you don't have "special rights" that allow 40%+ of the population not to pay any income tax.

It's this special right not to pay taxes that's wrong. It creates no fiscal responsibility in the people's vote for who they send to office.

you may be part of the right but you're not part of the wealthy class dick head...:lmao what I commend the right on is getting millions of uneducated lay folk to completely vote against their own interests...it is rather astounding...:rollinKudo's to them for pulling that shit off

[Winehole23]

what I commend the right on is getting millions of uneducated lay folk to completely vote against their own interests..A scathing critique of false consciousness. How impeccably collegiate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F).

[TheSullyMonster]

Duh...

No shit Sherlock. I said that, and it was within my point, but I guess you are too daft to understand. My point is you shouldn't also have to pay a higher percentage. The rich are already paying more just because they make more.

10% of the population controls 70% of the wealth in this country. Why shouldn't they pay 70% of the taxes?:wakeup