Paul Ryan, Enemy of the Middle Class?

[Assuredcw]

So, what I'm getting is that nobody can pay another dime in taxes except for the Top Quintile, whom according to the Tax Policy Center make an average of $251,746 a year and already pay 69.7% of federal income tax receipts.

If you look at the demographic makeup of the top quintile we aren't talking about a vast segment of society rolling around in Maybachs. We're talking about people who made their money from a variety of different ways, they are doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and people in finance. Many of them hold advanced degrees and work just as harder, if not harder, than the rest of the population.

There is an admitted need on my part for the government to collect more tax revenue but demonizing the people who already pay a hefty share of the federal income tax isn't going to solve anything.

So, since the first question went over so well let's pose a hypothetical. How about instead of jacking up the taxes on the wealthy we take away the Top Quintiles Social Security benefits when they retire, setting up certain parameters of course (i.e. earning $251,746 in only one year wouldn't constitute being in the top quintile.) Would this be acceptable to people in favor of more taxes on the wealthy?

Demonize? Seriously?

Now look, all we are talking about here, is letting the upper brackets of the Bush tax cuts expire (they are supposed to), and letting the middle and lower brackets keep theirs as a matter of fiscal policy. The point is, no fiscal policy is served by cutting taxes on the upper brackets, except possibly to increase investment, but more and more investment is going overseas. Now, I could see cutting taxes for corporations and the upper brackets, if at the same time you penalize the foreign investment (because if they are going to China to build a manufacturing plant and hire people, I'll be darned if I am going to pay for that). But the GOP Congress won't allow the tax penalties to pass, so I think until it does, we shouldn't have any tax cuts for these people. The tax cuts should serve a purpose that will benefit ALL of us, and cuts for the upper brackets don't benefit us unless there is a corresponding penalty for foreign investment.

 

[RedPaddy]

Demonize? Seriously?

Now look, all we are talking about here, is letting the upper brackets of the Bush tax cuts expire (they are supposed to),

the Bush tax cuts did expire. The extended tax cuts are the obama tax cuts., he signed them.

and letting the middle and lower brackets keep theirs as a matter of fiscal policy. The point is, no fiscal policy is served by cutting taxes on the upper brackets, except possibly to increase investment, but more and more investment is going overseas. Now, I could see cutting taxes for corporations and the upper brackets, if at the same time you penalize the foreign investment (because if they are going to China to build a manufacturing plant and hire people, I'll be darned if I am going to pay for that). But the GOP Congress won't allow the tax penalties to pass, so I think until it does, we shouldn't have any tax cuts for these people. The tax cuts should serve a purpose that will benefit ALL of us, and cuts for the upper brackets don't benefit us unless there is a corresponding penalty for foreign investment.

You sound like you are doing the upper income earners a favor by giving them money. You have it backwards, they are doing you a favor by giving you their money. The government is not losing money and it's not "costing" the government a cent. The government takes other people's money and calls it theirs. You've been mislead.

 

[Assuredcw]

the Bush tax cuts did expire. The extended tax cuts are the obama tax cuts., he signed them.


You sound like you are doing the upper income earners a favor by giving them money. You have it backwards, they are doing you a favor by giving you their money. The government is not losing money and it's not "costing" the government a cent. The government takes other people's money and calls it theirs. You've been mislead.

Any money we give anybody, needs to serve a purpose, because otherwise that money is needed for deficit reduction.

Here's a link explaining this:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/26/746071/10-year-bush-tax-cut/

 

[RedPaddy]

Any money we give anybody, needs to serve a purpose, because otherwise that money is needed for deficit reduction.

just want to be clear. when you say "we" do you mean you and I or do you mean the US Govt?

 

[Assuredcw]

just want to be clear. when you say "we" do you mean you and I or do you mean the US Govt?

I mean what our elected officials, who are supposed to represent ALL OF US, are supposed to be doing.

 

[RedPaddy]

I mean what our elected officials, who are supposed to represent ALL OF US, are supposed to be doing.

Got it I think. WHen you said "Any money we give anybody, needs to serve a purpose, because otherwise that money is needed for deficit reduction", you mean that the money we spend outside our federal borders needs to serve a purpose. Am I correct?

If so, I concur with the thought. But suggest that we (as a nation) go even further and give no other country any $$ at all AND we bring home all troops not in any active combat or combat support roles.

 

[Assuredcw]

Got it I think. WHen you said "Any money we give anybody, needs to serve a purpose, because otherwise that money is needed for deficit reduction", you mean that the money we spend outside our federal borders needs to serve a purpose. Am I correct?

If so, I concur with the thought. But suggest that we (as a nation) go even further and give no other country any $$ at all AND we bring home all troops not in any active combat or combat support roles.

I think there is certainly room to re-evaluate those expenditures.

Meanwhile, we have problems here at home (naturally) that need our attention. Many formerly middle-class people are now poor, and their numbers are growing. The business editor had some thoughts on that in today's Huffington Post, and on Paul Ryan:

Peter S. Goodman: For GOP, Pitfalls In Ignoring Poor

Quoting from the link:

No matter what happens now, regardless of who lives in the White House next year, tens of millions of Americans are going to face difficulty finding work, paying their bills, supporting their children and securing health care. They are going to need help.
Romney knows this, but that may now be irrelevant. He and his running mate, Paul Ryan -- who plays a fiscal conservative on the stump while handing out tax cuts to rich people -- have branded themselves the guys who will take an axe to government spending. If they win, they will be beholden to those who wrote the checks to engineer their victory -- mostly major corporations and their executives, who are keen on paying as little in taxes as possible. They have promised to gut the safety net. Walking that back would be both politically dangerous and arithmetically impossible, given their tax cut promises.
Romney and Ryan are running a campaign centered on turning out their base in abundant numbers while depressing turnout among likely Obama supporters, with barriers at polling places (impeding low-income and minority voters), and a relentless stream of cynical television advertising that seems designed to disgust and exhaust all but the hardiest citizens.
Disparaging the poor and vowing to take apart the social safety net may turn out to be good politics for the Republicans this time, because it appeals to those inclined to see Obama as a champion of big government. For middle-class people threatened with downward mobility, rejecting government as a source of wasted expenditure is a natural impulse. This is how we got President Reagan: Wage growth had been stagnating and many people needed more cash, making tax cuts compelling.
But the Republican gimmick of promising prosperity through tax cuts while handing most of the loot to the wealthy can only work for so long. Most Americans get how this story played out during the splendiferous reign of George W. Bush.

This really is true. Middle class people need to be realistic about the tax cuts we can afford to give out to those at the upper echelons. Historically that is where most of the tax revenue has come from, so cutting their taxes dramatically (the rates are already down 30 points in 30 years, and if it's capital gains only, add another 20 point reduction to that!), will place an additional burden on the rest of us, who have increasingly limited disposable income. If you vote for people who are promising these people even MORE tax cuts (they have already received a reduction of about 50 points apiece), be forewarned that this is exactly what is going to happen. If you don't like it, you'd better tell your people in Congress NOW.

 

[Assuredcw]

I just edited post # 63 on this page, with a link.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You sound like you are doing the upper income earners a favor by giving them money. You have it backwards, they are doing you a favor by giving you their money. The government is not losing money and it's not "costing" the government a cent. The government takes other people's money and calls it theirs. You've been mislead.

No. You live in a society and it costs money to run that society. That society has decided for itself that the best way to fund its operations is to levy taxes upon those who enjoy the benefits it provides. If you think a country club is too expensive, you either lobby to reduce the dues, or you quit. If you think your cable bill is too high, you either call Comcast and ask for a better rate, or you cancel your service. And if you think your taxes are too high, you either lobby your elected representatives to lower your taxes or you move to another country.

But in none of these cases are you doing anyone a "favor" by paying for the services and benefits you receive from being a member of the group which provides them.

-Dan.

 

[RedPaddy]

No. You live in a society and it costs money to run that society. That society has decided for itself that the best way to fund its operations is to levy taxes upon those who enjoy the benefits it provides. If you think a country club is too expensive, you either lobby to reduce the dues, or you quit. If you think your cable bill is too high, you either call Comcast and ask for a better rate, or you cancel your service. And if you think your taxes are too high, you either lobby your elected representatives to lower your taxes or you move to another country.

But in none of these cases are you doing anyone a "favor" by paying for the services and benefits you receive from being a member of the group which provides them.

-Dan.

Dan, you're oh so close to getting it. The part where you say "That society has decided for itself that the best way to fund its operations is to levy taxes upon those who enjoy the benefits it provides" is only wrong in one account. Those voting in favor of levying taxes on others are the ones enjoying the benfits but they do not pay for those benefits. 33%, 1 in 3 people in the US, are partakers in the social safety net programs (snap, welfare, section 8, etc.) that are paid for by those in the ~50% who actually pay income taxes.

Those who are working for what they have and not on the govt breast are doing a favor to those who will not provide for themselves.

 

[RedPaddy]

This really is true. Middle class people need to be realistic about the tax cuts we can afford to give out to those at the upper echelons.

there is no one giving out anything. we are simply not taking as much from one class. What you are proposing is class warfare.

Historically that is where most of the tax revenue has come from,

It still is.

so cutting their taxes dramatically (the rates are already down 30 points in 30 years, and if it's capital gains only, add another 20 point reduction to that!),

Be fair, how much have the taxes on the bottom 50% of wage earners been cut? 100%. THat's right. The bottom 50% pay no federal income tax so their rates have been cut 100%. Is it fiar to now raise them on any group? No, that's not fair by any honest definition.

will place an additional burden on the rest of us, who have increasingly limited disposable income.

No, it only returns a portion of the burden to where it began.

If you vote for people who are promising these people even MORE tax cuts (they have already received a reduction of about 50 points apiece),

That 50 points is half of what the other party gave to the bottom half of the population - a 100% reduction in taxes.

be forewarned that this is exactly what is going to happen. If you don't like it, you'd better tell your people in Congress NOW.

I have, and we have the majority still.

 

[Thekla]

Dan, you're oh so close to getting it. The part where you say "That society has decided for itself that the best way to fund its operations is to levy taxes upon those who enjoy the benefits it provides" is only wrong in one account. Those voting in favor of levying taxes on others are the ones enjoying the benfits but they do not pay for those benefits. 33%, 1 in 3 people in the US, are partakers in the social safety net programs (snap, welfare, section 8, etc.) that are paid for by those in the ~50% who actually pay income taxes.

Those who are working for what they have and not on the govt breast are doing a favor to those who will not provide for themselves.

Cutbacks in gov. does effectively permit more fraud to occur. At all levels.

Certainly on-line application for food stamps and secondary support programs (LiHeap, etc.) without appropriate confirmation is a byproduct of this.

It's no coincidence that the severe cuts to the FBI white collar crime division and the gutting of the SEC (along with the revolving door) preceded the economic collapse; failure of adequate oversight again.

It seems to me that once illegal behavior (ex. derivatives trades, influence peddling through campaign donations, no competition contracts - Iraq War) has been deregulated and then accepted.

All levels of society have benefitted if they are willing to set aside moral scruple, all levels of society have been damaged.

So, who benefits the most from this deregulation of moral expectation ?
Who benefits the most from the protection of the oil trade through war ?

I suggest we cut any expenditure to protect US business interests abroad, too (military - overt and covert, trade negotiation, Bretton woods, G-8, diplomatic, etc.). Let business do those negotiations and actions on their own. That would represent a huge savings.

Get rid of everyone's taxes ... let the whole thing re-set.

Or raise taxes on the middle class right now - that's what Europe is doing.
They're variously hanging on, in recession, and in a depression.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Dan, you're oh so close to getting it. The part where you say "That society has decided for itself that the best way to fund its operations is to levy taxes upon those who enjoy the benefits it provides" is only wrong in one account. Those voting in favor of levying taxes on others are the ones enjoying the benfits but they do not pay for those benefits. 33%, 1 in 3 people in the US, are partakers in the social safety net programs (snap, welfare, section 8, etc.) that are paid for by those in the ~50% who actually pay income taxes.

Everyone benefits from government spending, not just the people on public assistance. Everyone pays taxes, not just the people who pay federal income tax.

-Dan.

 

[Assuredcw]

Cutbacks in gov. does effectively permit more fraud to occur. At all levels.

Certainly on-line application for food stamps and secondary support programs (LiHeap, etc.) without appropriate confirmation is a byproduct of this.

It's no coincidence that the severe cuts to the FBI white collar crime division and the gutting of the SEC (along with the revolving door) preceded the economic collapse; failure of adequate oversight again.

It seems to me that once illegal behavior (ex. derivatives trades, influence peddling through campaign donations, no competition contracts - Iraq War) has been deregulated and then accepted.

All levels of society have benefitted if they are willing to set aside moral scruple, all levels of society have been damaged.

So, who benefits the most from this deregulation of moral expectation ?
Who benefits the most from the protection of the oil trade through war ?

I suggest we cut any expenditure to protect US business interests abroad, too (military - overt and covert, trade negotiation, Bretton woods, G-8, diplomatic, etc.). Let business do those negotiations and actions on their own. That would represent a huge savings.

Get rid of everyone's taxes ... let the whole thing re-set.

Or raise taxes on the middle class right now - that's what Europe is doing.
They're variously hanging on, in recession, and in a depression.

Tell him, Thekla! I've sung the same song on so many threads now, and it really IS a very alarming trend of thought. I can't help but think that people won't like it as much as they think they will, if this were to actually happen ("get the government off our backs" which would include law enforcement -- oops!).

 

[Philip22]

I would say that he is an enemy of anyone who isn't in his inter circle of wealthy citizens and corporations. Lets just look at somethings that the republican party is not too open to share.

The source for this is..Robert L. Borosage: The Hard Truth About Romney's Republican Party

"What this Romney-Ryan ticket represents in fact is clear: a preferential option for the rich and a punitive imposition on the poor"

"Mitt Romney's Republican Party isn't passionate about reducing deficits. A candidate that promises to hand out another $900 billion in tax breaks a year by 2015, mostly to the already wealthy, isn't focused on deficits. And telling "hard truths" is not a trait of a candidate who promises to pay for those tax cuts by closing loopholes he won't identify, and pledges deep cuts in spending but refuses to reveal what he would cut."

"A 20% tax cut across the board above the extended Bush taxes, will hand millionaires an average $175,000 a year tax break. Corporations will get not only a cut in tax rates, but a "territorial corporate tax" system that exempts companies from U.S. taxes for anything reported as earned abroad, giving multinationals a million dollar incentive to transfer jobs and report profits abroad"

"62% of Ryan's cuts of $5.3 trillion over the next decade would come from programs for the poor -- from child nutrition to aid to schools in poor neighborhoods to Head Start"

"With the US suffering Gilded Age levels of inequality, Romney will fight for more tax cuts for the very wealthy and the corporations. And with record numbers in poverty, Mitt's promise is to savage vital programs for the vulnerable."

I ask you, after reading this, and if you yourself or if you know someone who has been negatively impacted in some way by the recession/economic downturn over the last five years, which by the way many of Romneys "pals" contributed too in their desire to attain insurmountable wealth ... do we really want this guy as a president? Since it is clear that he is not looking out for the interest of the common person but rather his rich friends.

Again, the complete article can be found at .....Robert L. Borosage: The Hard Truth About Romney's Republican Party

 

[Dairy]

There is a new poll out today by PEW about the middle class. They are glooming, having not done well over the last couple years. The economic policies of large stimulus spending, quantitative easing, etc. haven't helped. With that, I'd have to guess possibly the ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could win or come close to winning this group over come election time.

"Middle Class Sank and Shrank During Recovery"

Middle Class Sank and Shrank During Recovery | Via Meadia

snippet:

...But a deeper look at the data shows some troubling signs for the president. Although 52 percent of the middle class express faith in the President, 42 percent believe they are worse off than they were before the recession. And as Timothy Noah notes in the New Republic, most of the income losses these families suffered occurred during the recovery rather than the recession itself. Regardless of race, education, or marital status, the middle class took one on the chin after 2009.
Although Obama retains his narrow lead in the middle class, he clearly can’t take their support for granted. Governor Romney has a chance to make the case; ten interesting weeks lie ahead.

 

[Thekla]

An economist that Romney quotes in his "White paper" on the economy was quite clear - housing recessions take about a decade to clear. Add to that the middle class is deeply in debt (a combination of profligacy for some, a decline in the real value of incomes for some, and job loss, medical or other crisis). Considering the mess, the economy is not doing as badly as it could be.

But rise in middle class taxes would likely leave us looking like Europe - stalled, recession, depression. China is stalling, too.

Neither candidate is actually informing the voters of the problem, or its depth.

Romney's proposed increase in defense spending, and his war mongering against Iran, are just basically "military Keynesianism".

 

[Philip22]

Here is just another of the many reason not to vote for Mitt Romney..., that is of course you care about your job and being treated fairly and honestly and wish the same for others. Pay particular attention to the first 2:20 minutes of the first video.

Mitt Romney is a serial liar - The Rachel Maddow Show (March 21st, 2012) - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaXN3Iy-7AM&feature=related

 

[Assuredcw]

Thank you Phillip22 and Thekla!

Thekla - don't forget that President Obama has economic advisors who perfectly understand EVERYTHING that needs to happen - Congress has obstructed the President to make Obama a one-term President.

Look up your local representation on Congress.org, and pay attention to those "No" votes. It would be the GOP's worst nightmare if all of their constituents checked up on their voting records. They won't stand up to any scutiny, but they are counting on you not to check up on them!

 

[Assuredcw]

.