Ryan 2015 starts with: Repeal Obamacare"

[g5000]

1. Raise the Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages to 70 and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established Social Security, we should be working longer than they did.

2. Ban all tax expenditures, and I mean all. That means no mortgage interest deduction (watch the faux righties fall out and scream like hippies at this point), no employer-sponsored health insurance tax exemption. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You can't bribe a politician to give you a carve-out if he does not have the power to do so. This will also enable us to lower everyone's tax rates, AND pay down the federal debt. Once the debt is paid off, we can lower tax rates even more.

3. Make buying health insurance the same process as buying auto, life, or home insurance.

4. Cut Defense spending. Adjusted for inflation, we are spending far more than we spent during even the hottest moments of the Cold War when we faced an actual existential threat. There is no excuse for this.

5. Return power to the states, perhaps beginning with a repeal of the 17th amendment. Again, there is no point in bribing a federal politician if he doesn't have the power to give you what you want. And it is a lot harder to capture 50 state regulatory bodies than it is to capture one federal one. It is a lot harder to capture 50 state legislatures than it is to capture one Congress.

Notice I not only balanced the budget, I created an astronomical surplus and cut tax rates. Without threatening a single food stamp or Obamaphone.

I am with you on most of that, on 2. I think you meant tax deductions.

No, I meant tax expenditures. That is the official budgetary name, and they are costing us over a trillion dollars a year, and the result is that people and businesses earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of income taxes and this causes tax rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. Ban tax expenditures and you widen the tax base.

the mortgage deduction exists to encourage home ownership. without it we might have a majority of renters and a lot of rich landlords--do you think that would be good?

The mortage interest deduction has only one result: It raises house prices. The market prices the deduction into the cost of a house. Eliminating it has no effect on home ownership. The deduction is a highly regressive tax break. The wealthier you are, the bigger deduction you get. It is one of the biggest personal tax expenditures out there and creates an extremely unlevel playing field for taxpayers.

raising the SS age is fine but we should keep the option to retire at 62 at a reduced monthly payment, medicare should stay at 65.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established those ages. We should be working longer. That is common sense.

I would also add that the SS tax should be collected on all income of all kinds, not just the first 106K of earned income.

Agreed.

 

[Brain357]

Medicare has already been screwed with, obozo took 400 billion out of it to partially fund the disaster known as obamacare.

Think Matt, where does the money for infrastructure projects come from? Do you think the govt has some secret stash that has an unlimited amount just sitting there?

if you want more spent on infrastructure, and I agree with you on that, then less needs to be spent on something else.

What would you cut? let me guess-----defence, right? At a time when Russia, China, Iran, north Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, al qaeda, hezbollah, and hamas are all building up and all hating the USA----------do you really think we should reduce our military capability?

Yes we should. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. If we would stop sticking our nose in everyone's business they wouldn't all hate us. Not our job to police the world. Can't afford it.

I agree, we are not the world's police force or its morals enforcer. We need to stay out of other countries business unless they pose a direct threat to this country.

What we don't need is what obama is doing, cutting the military across the board and retaining our police role.

Can't disagree with that.

 

[g5000]

Banning tax expenditures would mean two people who each earn $50,000 would pay identical taxes. Two corporations that each earned a million dollars would pay identical taxes.

It does not get more equitable than that.

 

[Redfish]

1. Raise the Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages to 70 and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established Social Security, we should be working longer than they did.

2. Ban all tax expenditures, and I mean all. That means no mortgage interest deduction (watch the faux righties fall out and scream like hippies at this point), no employer-sponsored health insurance tax exemption. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You can't bribe a politician to give you a carve-out if he does not have the power to do so. This will also enable us to lower everyone's tax rates, AND pay down the federal debt. Once the debt is paid off, we can lower tax rates even more.

3. Make buying health insurance the same process as buying auto, life, or home insurance.

4. Cut Defense spending. Adjusted for inflation, we are spending far more than we spent during even the hottest moments of the Cold War when we faced an actual existential threat. There is no excuse for this.

5. Return power to the states, perhaps beginning with a repeal of the 17th amendment. Again, there is no point in bribing a federal politician if he doesn't have the power to give you what you want. And it is a lot harder to capture 50 state regulatory bodies than it is to capture one federal one. It is a lot harder to capture 50 state legislatures than it is to capture one Congress.

Notice I not only balanced the budget, I created an astronomical surplus and cut tax rates. Without threatening a single food stamp or Obamaphone.

I am with you on most of that, on 2. I think you meant tax deductions.

No, I meant tax expenditures. That is the official budgetary name, and they are costing us over a trillion dollars a year, and the result is that people and businesses earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of income taxes and this causes tax rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. Ban tax expenditures and you widen the tax base.





The mortage interest deduction has only one result: It raises house prices. The market prices the deduction into the cost of a house. Eliminating it has no effect on home ownership. The deduction is a highly regressive tax break. The wealthier you are, the bigger deduction you get.

raising the SS age is fine but we should keep the option to retire at 62 at a reduced monthly payment, medicare should stay at 65.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established those ages. We should be working longer. That is common sense.

I would also add that the SS tax should be collected on all income of all kinds, not just the first 106K of earned income.

Agreed.

if you are talking about filling out your 1040 the proper term is tax deductions.

you are also wrong about the rich getting larger deductions, there is a limit of how much you can claim on your schedule A based on your income.

we should be able to retire when we want to and are able to. not when the govt tells us we can. We paid into SS and medicare our entire working lives based on a promise that we could draw it out at 62 or 65. Those promises should be kept.

 

[Redfish]

1. Raise the Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages to 70 and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established Social Security, we should be working longer than they did.

2. Ban all tax expenditures, and I mean all. That means no mortgage interest deduction (watch the faux righties fall out and scream like hippies at this point), no employer-sponsored health insurance tax exemption. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You can't bribe a politician to give you a carve-out if he does not have the power to do so. This will also enable us to lower everyone's tax rates, AND pay down the federal debt. Once the debt is paid off, we can lower tax rates even more.

3. Make buying health insurance the same process as buying auto, life, or home insurance.

4. Cut Defense spending. Adjusted for inflation, we are spending far more than we spent during even the hottest moments of the Cold War when we faced an actual existential threat. There is no excuse for this.

5. Return power to the states, perhaps beginning with a repeal of the 17th amendment. Again, there is no point in bribing a federal politician if he doesn't have the power to give you what you want. And it is a lot harder to capture 50 state regulatory bodies than it is to capture one federal one. It is a lot harder to capture 50 state legislatures than it is to capture one Congress.

Notice I not only balanced the budget, I created an astronomical surplus and cut tax rates. Without threatening a single food stamp or Obamaphone.

I am with you on most of that, on 2. I think you meant tax deductions.

No, I meant tax expenditures. That is the official budgetary name, and they are costing us over a trillion dollars a year, and the result is that people and businesses earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of income taxes and this causes tax rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. Ban tax expenditures and you widen the tax base.





The mortage interest deduction has only one result: It raises house prices. The market prices the deduction into the cost of a house. Eliminating it has no effect on home ownership. The deduction is a highly regressive tax break. The wealthier you are, the bigger deduction you get. It is one of the biggest personal tax expenditures out there and creates an extremely unlevel playing field for taxpayers.

raising the SS age is fine but we should keep the option to retire at 62 at a reduced monthly payment, medicare should stay at 65.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established those ages. We should be working longer. That is common sense.

I would also add that the SS tax should be collected on all income of all kinds, not just the first 106K of earned income.

Agreed.

Banning tax expenditures would mean two people who each earn $50,000 would pay identical taxes. Two corporations that each earned a million dollars would pay identical taxes.

It does not get more equitable than that.

Should a couple with 5 kids making 50K pay the same as a single guy making 50K ?

 

[Brain357]

I am with you on most of that, on 2. I think you meant tax deductions.

No, I meant tax expenditures. That is the official budgetary name, and they are costing us over a trillion dollars a year, and the result is that people and businesses earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of income taxes and this causes tax rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. Ban tax expenditures and you widen the tax base.





The mortage interest deduction has only one result: It raises house prices. The market prices the deduction into the cost of a house. Eliminating it has no effect on home ownership. The deduction is a highly regressive tax break. The wealthier you are, the bigger deduction you get. It is one of the biggest personal tax expenditures out there and creates an extremely unlevel playing field for taxpayers.



We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established those ages. We should be working longer. That is common sense.



Agreed.

Banning tax expenditures would mean two people who each earn $50,000 would pay identical taxes. Two corporations that each earned a million dollars would pay identical taxes.

It does not get more equitable than that.

Should a couple with 5 kids making 50K pay the same as a single guy making 50K ?

I don't think so.

 

[g5000]

I am with you on most of that, on 2. I think you meant tax deductions.

No, I meant tax expenditures. That is the official budgetary name, and they are costing us over a trillion dollars a year, and the result is that people and businesses earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of income taxes and this causes tax rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. Ban tax expenditures and you widen the tax base.





The mortage interest deduction has only one result: It raises house prices. The market prices the deduction into the cost of a house. Eliminating it has no effect on home ownership. The deduction is a highly regressive tax break. The wealthier you are, the bigger deduction you get.



We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established those ages. We should be working longer. That is common sense.

I would also add that the SS tax should be collected on all income of all kinds, not just the first 106K of earned income.

Agreed.

if you are talking about filling out your 1040 the proper term is tax deductions.

Nope. Tax expenditures include credits and exemptions as well as deductions.

you are also wrong about the rich getting larger deductions, there is a limit of how much you can claim on your schedule A based on your income.

The larger your mortgage, the larger your deduction. That is regressive, plain and simple. If you hit a ceiling, that just proves how regressive it is!

we should be able to retire when we want to and are able to. not when the govt tells us we can. We paid into SS and medicare our entire working lives based on a promise that we could draw it out at 62 or 65. Those promises should be kept.

I did not say retirement age. I was very careful to say the Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages.

The two terms are commonly conflated.

As for the promise that was made, that promise can't be fulfilled if the government doesn't have the money.

Ryan's plan does not raise the eligibility age for those who are currently 55 or older. I would be amenable to something like that, and I am under 55. I would have no problem having the eligibility age raised to 70 for me.

Another result of raising the eligibility age is that the payroll tax can be lowered because we will be working five years longer, and thus paying in that much longer, and drawing out five years less.

 

[Redfish]

No, I meant tax expenditures. That is the official budgetary name, and they are costing us over a trillion dollars a year, and the result is that people and businesses earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of income taxes and this causes tax rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. Ban tax expenditures and you widen the tax base.





The mortage interest deduction has only one result: It raises house prices. The market prices the deduction into the cost of a house. Eliminating it has no effect on home ownership. The deduction is a highly regressive tax break. The wealthier you are, the bigger deduction you get.



We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established those ages. We should be working longer. That is common sense.



Agreed.

if you are talking about filling out your 1040 the proper term is tax deductions.

Nope. Tax expenditures include credits and exemptions as well as deductions.

you are also wrong about the rich getting larger deductions, there is a limit of how much you can claim on your schedule A based on your income.

The larger your mortgage, the larger your deduction. That is regressive, plain and simple. If you hit a ceiling, that just proves how regressive it is!

we should be able to retire when we want to and are able to. not when the govt tells us we can. We paid into SS and medicare our entire working lives based on a promise that we could draw it out at 62 or 65. Those promises should be kept.

I did not say retirement age. I was very careful to say the Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages.

The two terms are commonly conflated.

As for the promise that was made, that promise can't be fulfilled if the government doesn't have the money.

Ryan's plan does not raise the eligibility age for those who are currently 55 or older. I would be amenable to something like that, and I am under 55. I would have no problem having the eligibility age raised to 70 for me.

Another result of raising the eligibility age is that the payroll tax can be lowered because we will be working five years longer, and thus paying in that much longer, and drawing out five years less.

I am not going to argue it with you, but you are wrong on the terminology and the mortgage interest deduction. Having been a paid tax preparer for the last 30 years, I know what I am talking about on this topic.

I have no problem with a gradual raising of the age for collecting SS and medicare.

 

[Redfish]

No, I meant tax expenditures. That is the official budgetary name, and they are costing us over a trillion dollars a year, and the result is that people and businesses earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of income taxes and this causes tax rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. Ban tax expenditures and you widen the tax base.





The mortage interest deduction has only one result: It raises house prices. The market prices the deduction into the cost of a house. Eliminating it has no effect on home ownership. The deduction is a highly regressive tax break. The wealthier you are, the bigger deduction you get. It is one of the biggest personal tax expenditures out there and creates an extremely unlevel playing field for taxpayers.



We are living decades longer than our ancestors who established those ages. We should be working longer. That is common sense.



Agreed.

Banning tax expenditures would mean two people who each earn $50,000 would pay identical taxes. Two corporations that each earned a million dollars would pay identical taxes.

It does not get more equitable than that.

Should a couple with 5 kids making 50K pay the same as a single guy making 50K ?

I don't think so.

nor do I. How about a single mother with 5 kids who collects 50K in welfare payments and doesn't work? should she pay any taxes?

 

[g5000]

Let's say the only exemption, credit, or deduction you are eligible for is the mortgage interest deduction.

If the mortgage interest deduction went away, the amount of tax you pay would go up, right?

Thus proving the mortgage interest deduction is as much a "gift" from the federal government as an Obamaphone.

Before you argue that the deduction is you being able to keep more of YOUR money and an Obamaphone isn't, consider who is paying for your deduction. Because the government is taking less from you, it has to take more from someone else. And the only way to accomplish that is to raise tax rates on everyone to increase revenues.

So in that respect, you are no different than the person who gets an Obamaphone. Someone else is paying for your gift from the government.

Even worse, since we balk at raising tax rates beyond a certain point, the government is therefore forced to borrow money from China and other countries to cover the lack of revenue from giving you that deduction.

Tax expenditures are costing the government $1.2 trillion a year. Not every ten years. Every year. That is more than our deficit!

It could be argued that tax expenditures are all by themselves responsible for our national debt.

Those people and businesses who take advantage of exemptions, credits, and deductions are paying less in taxes than others in their same income group. How is this in any way impartial?

It isn't. Take away tax expenditures, and the tax rates don't need to be so high to make up for that trillion dollar shortfall. And everyone would be paying the same taxes in their income tier. Get it?

Tax expenditures are one of the more pernicious ways our government attempts to manipulate our behavior. And it is government giving itself power which is easily corrupted. If you take away a politician's ability to put a carve out in the tax code, you take away the reason to bribe him to do so.

 

[edthecynic]

I am going to pare down my previous long post to the relevant part which exposes the ignorance of edthecynic's post:

He also wants to ensure insurance companies don't boot sicker seniors:

If an insurance company does not cover the sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries, they don't get to participate in the Medicare exchange.

And none of them will participate at a price covered by the voucher. What you left out in your summation is insurance companies can choose not to participate in the Big Government controlled Medicare exchange. And why would they if the cost was not high enough to be as profitable as insuring the healthy?

From Lyin' Ryan's Voucher Plan:

"Moreover, it would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage."


And the voucher is not guaranteed to cover the cost, only "offset" it. You'll have to give up needed coverage or pony up more money. So my cartoon hits the nail right on the head!

From Lyin' Ryan's Voucher Plan:

"For future retirees, the budget supports an approach known as ‘‘premium support.’’ Starting in 2024, seniors (those who first become eligible by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2024) would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan’s cost."