Paul Ryan, Enemy of the Middle Class?

[GarfieldJL]

You need to stop being disrespectful. I'm not going to tell you again.

Look you are falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book, you're falling for a gimmick that is often used by retailers.



Retailers know that charging less money than the other guy is not necessarily going to cause items to get sold. In fact the competitor can often sell the same item at a higher price, simply by adding a nice sign like on of the Following:

1. Clearance
2. Sale
3. 30% off sale

You see the mortgage deduction is like a "30% off" sales gimmick so you don't notice the fact you'd actually be paying the same amount or less with the Ryan tax plan.

How about oil subsidies?

Oil Companies actually don't receive subsidies...


But again, the sales pitch is based on a giant distortion — a lie. Obama and the Democrats talk about huge “subsidies” — as if taxpayers are signing billion-dollar checks to oil and gas companies. But oil companies don’t get subsidies. Rather, like every other business, they’re allowed to take tax deductions for the expenses they incur.
A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.
Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...rez_oil_tax_break_lies_Y2Yj6KCU9QIO0BKHs1Be7M

 

[Assuredcw]

Look you are falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book, you're falling for a gimmick that is often used by retailers.





Retailers know that charging less money than the other guy is not necessarily going to cause items to get sold. In fact the competitor can often sell the same item at a higher price, simply by adding a nice sign like on of the Following:

1. Clearance
2. Sale
3. 30% off sale

You see the mortgage deduction is like a "30% off" sales gimmick so you don't notice the fact you'd actually be paying the same amount or less with the Ryan tax plan.


Oil Companies actually don't receive subsidies...


But again, the sales pitch is based on a giant distortion — a lie. Obama and the Democrats talk about huge “subsidies” — as if taxpayers are signing billion-dollar checks to oil and gas companies. But oil companies don’t get subsidies. Rather, like every other business, they’re allowed to take tax deductions for the expenses they incur.
A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.
Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.
Oil, gas companies aren’t subsidized - NYPOST.com

You are entitled to your opinion, but quit with the koolaid. I am tired of that.

 

[GarfieldJL]

You nare entitled to your opinion, but quit with the koolaid. I am tired of that.

I'm stating facts, not opinion.

The big oil companies do not get subsidies that is a fact not opinion.

The potential of eliminating the mortgage deduction and lowering rates overall could potentially result in you not paying any more in taxes is actually fact, not opinion, it's basic math.

 

[[serious]]

I'm stating facts, not opinion.

The big oil companies do not get subsidies that is a fact not opinion.

The potential of eliminating the mortgage deduction and lowering rates overall could potentially result in you not paying any more in taxes is actually fact, not opinion, it's basic math.

Without the mortgage deduction, I'd have paid about $500 more in taxes. I just filed today and looked at both itemized and unitemized. That was the actual real world difference for me.

 

[Assuredcw]

Without the mortgage deduction, I'd have paid about $500 more in taxes. I just filed today and looked at both itemized and unitemized. That was the actual real world difference for me.

Thank you for sharing that!

Facts are often multifaceted, and depend on one's perspective. People who have middle and lower incomes are going to be hurtin' for certain if Ryan gets his way, because they will remove more of the deductions that give me and others additional disposable income that frankly, we need to live on, or (imagine that!) to save.

I sincerely hope that people have been paying attention to what Paul Ryan has been up to, and that they will tell their Congressmen that they will not support a flattened tax code (Lindsay Graham on Meet the Press this morning). If you flatten an incline, the bottom of the incline goes up and the top of the incline goes down. That is as good an admission as any that the lower and (frankly) middle is going to get a larger share of the tax burden, and that this will become permanent. Taking disposable income AWAY from people who have limited resources, so that people who have more money than they know what to do with it, can invest it overseas, is unspeakable!

I am going to find the video of Lindsay Graham talking about that flattened tax code...one moment please.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Without the mortgage deduction, I'd have paid about $500 more in taxes. I just filed today and looked at both itemized and unitemized. That was the actual real world difference for me.

You are using the same faulty assumption that Assuredcw is...

You both are operating on the faulty premise that the Tax Rate % is remaining a constant.

What Paul Ryan suggested was lowering the Tax Rate % across the board, while eliminating some deductions.

You are making the assumption that something is a constant, when it is actually a variable.

 

[Assuredcw]

You are using the same faulty assumption that Assuredcw is...

You both are operating on the faulty premise that the Tax Rate % is remaining a constant.

What Paul Ryan suggested was lowering the Tax Rate % across the board, while eliminating some deductions.

You are making the assumption that something is a constant, when it is actually a variable.

The result is intended to be a flattened tax code, however. That part is correct, because Senator Lindsay Graham knows what he is talking about. He was invited to present the GOP's viewpoint on what a budget compromise would entail, and the flattened code is one of them (if you flatten an incline, the top goes up and the bottom and middle go up). That viewpoint came straight from Paul Ryan (I have been reading about him for the last decade, and became so sickened I had to do a thread on him). I got side-tracked -- I need to find that video of Senator Graham from Meet the Press this morning.

 

[Assuredcw]

Here is Senator Graham (thank you, Sir):

Meet the Press

 

[GarfieldJL]

The result is intended to be a flattened tax code, however. That part is correct, because Senator Lindsay Graham knows what he is talking about. He was invited to present the GOP's viewpoint on what a budget compromise would entail, and the flattened code is one of them (if you flatten an incline, the top goes up and the bottom and middle go up). That viewpoint came straight from Paul Ryan (I have been reading about him for the last decade, and became so sickened I had to do a thread on him). I got side-tracked -- I need to find that video of Senator Graham from Meet the Press this morning.

Possibly, I don't see a problem with people paying $0 in income tax actually having to pay some small amount...

Additionally, the removal of quite a few deductions could make it so companies like GE finally have to start paying taxes...

 

[Assuredcw]

Possibly, I don't see a problem with people paying $0 in income tax actually having to pay some small amount...

Additionally, the removal of quite a few deductions could make it so companies like GE finally have to start paying taxes...

"Could" make GE pay more, as opposed to WILL make 98% of us pay more, giving the top 2% a WHOPPING tax cut. "Could," as opposed to WILL. That's all I am saying. "Flatten" is all I need to hear, and then I know exactly what is happening after you say that. Senator Graham hasn't been the first one to say it, either.

 

[GarfieldJL]

"Could" make GE pay more, as opposed to WILL make 98% of us pay more, giving the top 2% a WHOPPING tax cut. "Could," as opposed to WILL. That's all I am saying. "Flatten" is all I need to hear, and then I know exactly what is happening after you say that. Senator Graham hasn't been the first one to say it, either.

Assuredcw, unless you're saying you don't pay the Federal Income Tax, I fail to see how you're coming up with the notion that you would pay more.

I also used the "could" distinction when it came to GE because it is a major DNC campaign donor, and someone will try to stick in something to save the loopholes for GE...

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Possibly, I don't see a problem with people paying $0 in income tax actually having to pay some small amount...

seems ironic after you just made a big deal of how tax breaks for hyper profitable oil companies is NOT a subsidy to say something like this.

The poor pay taxes, both on goods as well as income. Many, however get TAX BREAKS which bring their numbers down to at or near zero on federal income taxes.

So why do we have to split hairs when it comes to Exxon or BP but just toss all the hair splitting out when it comes to people barely able to afford food?

 

[Assuredcw]

Assuredcw, unless you're saying you don't pay the Federal Income Tax, I fail to see how you're coming up with the notion that you would pay more.

I also used the "could" distinction when it came to GE because it is a major DNC campaign donor, and someone will try to stick in something to save the loopholes for GE...

I pay 25% less my deductions. But they want to "flatten" the progressive code. Since my own rate is already towards the BOTTOM, it will probably go up. You obviously disagree, but I know that flattening ANYTHING inclined (such as a graph of our current progressive tax code) will cause the lower end to go up. That's the definition of flattening anything.

 

[lordbt]

I pay 25% less my deductions. But they want to "flatten" the progressive code. Since my own rate is already towards the BOTTOM, it will probably go up. You obviously disagree, but I know that flattening ANYTHING inclined (such as a graph of our current progressive tax code) will cause the lower end to go up. That's the definition of flattening anything.

But since you WANT government programs of all sorts, why shouldnt you pay more?

 

[Assuredcw]

But since you WANT government programs of all sorts, why shouldnt you pay more?

The issue isn't so much government programs, but paying down the deficit.

The "government programs" that are being discussed have their own funds, and charge the participants -- that would be Social Security and Medicare. I don't want them to touch those, but that is because we pay for them already.

I obviously don't want people to be homeless or hungry, so I am all for Section 8 and Food Stamps, but I don't collect either of those at the moment. Thank you for your concern.

 

[lordbt]

The issue isn't so much government programs, but paying down the deficit.

But the deficit doesnt exist in a vaccuum. It is the result of government spending money on programs but not collecting enough in taxes to pay for them

The "government programs" that are being discussed have their own funds, and charge the participants -- that would be Social Security and Medicare. I don't want them to touch those, but that is because we pay for them already.

SS may be OK for now, but Medicare/Medicaid are not properly funded by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to save them, it is the payroll tax on everyone that needs to be adjusted. Tripled probably. The current level of 1.45% has been on place since the 80's. Medical insurance costs have gone up dramatically since then but medicar/medicaid payroll deductions havent budged.

I obviously don't want people to be homeless or hungry, so I am all for Section 8 and Food Stamps, but I don't collect either of those at the moment. Thank you for your concern.

You may not collect, but you want them to exist. So you cant really demand that others pay for it. You should step up and pay more if you believe in them so much.

 

[Assuredcw]

....You may not collect, but you want them to exist. So you cant really demand that others pay for it. You should step up and pay more if you believe in them so much.

We ALL benefit by the existence of these programs. I would try to find the post where I tried to illustrate this, but I am tired and my weekend will be over too soon!

What I basically said is that we all benefit when food, shelter and healthcare are given to poor people, because otherwise this would be a Third World country, complete with any number of diseases that we have managed to control here. It would be delusional to think (but you probably hadn't thought about it before) that the people down the street can be hungry and without healthcare and that it wouldn't affect you, or perhaps your children who attend school with their kids (lice, etc). You would have to step over homeless people laying in the street when you were out walking the dog! There would be cardboard boxes littered everywhere with shopping carts and B.O. from the homeless people everywhere who had to go without showers. You would be glad to pay a little toward keeping these people healthy and off the street, if you realized that it would affect your quality of life every minute of every day. Plus it would be heartbreaking to see this up close.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

We ALL benefit by the existence of these programs. I would try to find the post where I tried to illustrate this, but I am tired and my weekend will be over too soon!

What I basically said is that we all benefit when food, shelter and healthcare are given to poor people, because otherwise this would be a Third World country, complete with any number of diseases that we have managed to control here. It would be delusional to think (but you probably hadn't thought about it before) that the people down the street can be hungry and without healthcare and that it wouldn't affect you, or perhaps your children who attend school with their kids (lice, etc). You would have to step over homeless people laying in the street when you were out walking the dog! There would be cardboard boxes littered everywhere with shopping carts and B.O. from the homeless people everywhere who had to go without showers. You would be glad to pay a little toward keeping these people healthy and off the street, if you realized that it would affect your quality of life every minute of every day. Plus it would be heartbreaking to see this up close.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and eats for a lifetime. We seem to have lost that concept, or we are too lazy or apathetic or too self-righteous to spend the time in doing the teaching.

 

[GarfieldJL]

seems ironic after you just made a big deal of how tax breaks for hyper profitable oil companies is NOT a subsidy to say something like this.

The poor pay taxes, both on goods as well as income. Many, however get TAX BREAKS which bring their numbers down to at or near zero on federal income taxes.

So why do we have to split hairs when it comes to Exxon or BP but just toss all the hair splitting out when it comes to people barely able to afford food?

Those are not tax breaks either...

The Oil Companies are deducting their expenses from their gross sales just like any other business so that only the net profit is taxed, just like any other business...

gross sales - expenses = profit (before taxes)

The profit is what is taxed, not gross sales, if you made it so oil companies were taxed based on gross sales, they would actually have a slam dunk court case that a drunk law student could win because it would be that blatently arbitrary and capricious...

 

[[serious]]

Those are not tax breaks either...

The Oil Companies are deducting their expenses from their gross sales just like any other business so that only the net profit is taxed, just like any other business...

gross sales - expenses = profit (before taxes)

The profit is what is taxed, not gross sales, if you made it so oil companies were taxed based on gross sales, they would actually have a slam dunk court case that a drunk law student could win because it would be that blatently arbitrary and capricious...

Exxon Mobil profit just short of record - Feb. 1, 2013