People wonder why I am skeptical of the GOP on financial issues, well, they should read this article by a former member of the Reagan team, it really lays out in simple terms just how massive of a lie it is that republicans are better with the money than the Democratic party.
For the Forbes 400, 60% of their income come from capital gains. Your article is about a small number of wealthy who managed to dodge all taxes and not the general rule. Here’s an interesting counter article.
http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html
Also I’m sure you remember the hubablo about Romney’s taxes of around 15%, that’s because his income is nearly all capital gains, under Ryan’s plan his tax load would be nearly zero, so no I do not think I am being unfair.
Ryan has not specific what tax breaks would be eliminated nor what spending would be cut, his specifics are all in how low he would drive the tax rates.
“People who get their income by way of stocks and investments, and that is how the really rich get their income, would be paying zero income taxes under the Ryan plan.”
That seems like an astonishingly unfair analysis of the Ryan tax plan; a plan which even some liberals admire for elimination of loopholes for the rich.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/business/judge-a-tax-play-by-its-loopholes.html?pagewanted=all
———————–
… But Mr. Ryan said he believed everything should be on the table, even some of the Republicans’ most cherished tax breaks. “What we need is to get the country behind the principle first, which is to lower rates by broadening the tax base, then proceed to do it,” he said. “We need hearings in the light of day, with no back-room dealings. If we can’t afford certain policies, or if we can’t afford to retain certain tax breaks, then let’s have an open debate about it. But let’s do first things first. You can’t go out there with a detailed formula until there’s a consensus that we need to broaden the base and reduce rates.”…
… Although Mr. Ryan has been branded a radical, many of his tax reform proposals have bipartisan support. Two major commissions — the Debt Reduction Task Force headed by former Senator Pete Domenici, a Republican, and Alice M. Rivlin, head of the Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton, and the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — reached similar conclusions.
“He’s a purist when it comes to tax reform and I admire him for that,” Ms. Rivlin, now at the Brookings Institution, told me this week. “With respect to the form of what he’s proposing, I like it. He wants to broaden the base and bring the rates down and have a simplified rate structure. That general idea is embraced by many Democrats. The problem is, if you’re going to bring rates down as far as he suggests, you have to make drastic reductions in tax expenditures and dearly loved ones at that, such as the home mortgage deduction and the exclusion of employer-paid health care from income tax. To get to revenue-neutral with rates that low, you have to phase out nearly all those big tax deductions, and he doesn’t discuss the specifics of that.”
Dr. Rivlin also applauds Mr. Ryan’s emphasis on the way tax preferences benefit the wealthy. “He’s done a very good thing here,” she said. “There’s no question that those policies heavily favor the upper 1 percent, and certainly the upper 2 or 3 percent. If you’re going to have tax reform, then you’re going to have to increase the effective tax rate on the ultrawealthy.”…
—————————
Capital gains is not how the really rich get their income. The really rich get their money from owning a successful business or by inheriting money.
The primary means by which the rich game the system to avoid taxation is by investing in tax-free government bonds. In effect putting their money into servicing government debt. What a system!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/big-paychecks-tiny-tax-burdens-how-21000-wealthy-americans-avoided-paying-income-tax/
“So how does someone in the top 3 percent of America’s income earners finagle their income tax burden down to zero? For the majority of them, it’s all about donating to charity, investing in local and state governments, earning money overseas and writing off doctor bills.”
That would be the effect of lowering capital gaines taxes to zero. People who get their income by way of stocks and investments, and that is how the really rich get their income, would be paying zero income taxes under the Ryan plan. I do want a felt tax, but a flat tax on all forms of income. I thought it was the conservative who wanted everyone to have ‘skin in the game.’
“and he seeks to lower taxes on the investor class to zero, shifting the tax burden to the middle class and working classes of this country.”
Lower taxes on the investment CLASS to zero? Seriously? Or is that your interpretation of lowing investment TAXES to zero?
Gee Bob, I thought you were in favor of flatter taxes. Under Ryan’s plan the rich still pay more than the poor. And the elimination of tax breaks takes away the method some rich people use to game the system. Sounds flatter and fairer to me.
I do not find Ryans plans credible, or desirable. First he doesn’t raise taxes, his plan is to lower, reducing to two rates, and keep it revenue neutral by eliminating unspecified tax breaks, the he plans to cut suspending, but of course we don;t know what spending is going to be cut, that too is unspecified, and he seeks to lower taxes on the investor class to zero, shifting the tax burden to the middle class and working classes of this country.
Republican final years controlling Presidency and both houses of Congress
Fiscal year 2006 Federal spending 2.66 trillion dollars
Fiscal year 2007 Federal spending 2.73 trillion dollars
Democratic final years controlling Presidency and both houses of Congress
Fiscal year 2010 Federal spending 3.7 trillion dollars
Fiscal year 2011 Federal spending 3.6 trillion dollars
I was thinking of Paul Ryan and his plan.
His plan jiggers around with lots of different taxes and spending to bend the long term curve to fiscal solvency. Because of those complications, it is more accurate to say his plan flat-lines long term revenues at 19% of GNP, which is slightly higher than the present take. Whether the complex blend of tax changes he proposes actually produces such a result is conjecture.
http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/summary.htm
“It labels the spending by program and that is essential. What you do is assign it by year of control and that distorts things. For example Medicare Part D, a major piece of legislation by the Bush (43) administration, passed in 2003 totaling by the end of the chart to 272 billion in spending, you would assign the spending during Democratic years of the congress to the democrats but they didn’t push the law through.”
You are still not reading the CBO report accurately.
It does not detail every program in the budget, for that would not be practical in such a summary report. What it does helpfully do, is break down discretionary spending from major mandatory spending programs.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Republicans for spending from mandatory programs passed during the years of Republican control of Congress. But it doesn’t make a practical difference in the gross debt levels during the years the CBO report examines.
Republicans held both houses of Congress during fiscal years 2004 through 2007 (four years total). According to the CBO report the change in debt projections due to legislative changes in spending during those years was 1.53 trillion dollars.
The Democrats held both houses of Congress during fiscal years 2008 through 2011 (four years total). The change in the debt from legislative changes to spending during those years was 3.92 trillion dollars.
The only important mandatory spending change mentioned in the CBO report that passed during the Republican dominated fiscal years was the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Even if you subtract from the Democrats all the changes to the debt from that program, it doesn’t make much difference. The debt from spending changes during fiscal years 2008-2011 only decreases 5% to 3.73 trillion dollars.
In fact the Tea Party Republicans not only want to fix the immediate spending problems but also the debt-bomb from entitlements. This plan requires small tax increases and large spending cuts spread out over several years.
Which Tea Party backed politician is calling for any tax increases?
No, that is not what the CBO report says. There are no party labels in that document, only years, spending, income, and actual economic activity compared to assumed activity. It labels the spending by program and that is essential. What you do is assign it by year of control and that distorts things. For example Medicare Part D, a major piece of legislation by the Bush (43) administration, passed in 2003 totaling by the end of the chart to 272 billion in spending, you would assign the spending during Democratic years of the congress to the democrats but they didn’t push the law through.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
From notably right-wing biased CBS news!
[And even this story even understates the contrast, because I believe Congress has much more influence over domestic spending and taxes than the President does (whereas POTUS dominates foreign policy), and the Bush years only align with four years of Republican control of both houses of Congress.]
“Okay I read the report and it detailed the loss of income to the US from the Bush Tax cuts, along with the increased spending, which seems to support the argument.”
No, that is not what the CBO report says. There are no party labels in that document, only years, spending, income, and actual economic activity compared to assumed activity.
“Is your position that economically we were fine until the Democratic Party took control of the House and Senate in 2006? Despite that chart’s evidence that the tax cuts were sapping money from the treasury.”
No, it is my position that the Democrats are responsible for the lions share of the mess we currently are in.
If you look at the gross numbers from the beginning years to the end the CBO report works out this way…
The eventual 5.6 trillion surplus for 2011, anticipated in 2001, turns into an actual 6.1 trillion deficit. Of that difference of 11.7 trillion, 2.8 trillion is from tax cuts, 3.2 trillion is from reduced economic activity, and 5.7 trillion is from increased spending. So the critical issue is, who is responsible for that increased spending level?
Going over the previous congresses when one side had control of both houses of congress and comparing it to when the other side had control of both houses of congress is very enlightening. The numbers can be somewhat confusing to compare because fiscal years begin in the October of the previous calendar year (example: fy2008 runs from October 2007 to October 2008).
The fact is spending exploded once the Democrats took over after the 2006 election, and remained at high levels despite the winding down of the wars, and the end of the emergency stimulus sums paid out during the height of the current recession. If Federal spending just declined to the level it was the last time Republicans controlled both houses of congress, the country would save 1 trillion dollars per year.
“Or is your position that future Republican lawmakers are going to balance the budget though tax cuts, increased defense spending, and cutting social programs?”
In fact the Tea Party Republicans not only want to fix the immediate spending problems but also the debt-bomb from entitlements. This plan requires small tax increases and large spending cuts spread out over several years.
By contrast Obama ignored his very own bi-partisan commision he first promoted to look at the debt issue.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/08/news/la-pn-deficit-commission-20110309
The contrast between the two parties on spending has never been greater than it is today.
Okay I read the report and it detailed the loss of income to the US from the Bush Tax cuts, along with the increased spending, which seems to support the argument.
Is your position that economically we were fine until the Democratic Party took control of the House and Senate in 2006? Despite that chart’s evidence that the tax cuts were sapping money from the treasury. Or is your position that future Republican lawmakers are going to balance the budget though tax cuts, increased defense spending, and cutting social programs?
I love these rationalizations where Republicans are to blame for the spending policies of 2008 (which Bartlett specifically claimed), since I know the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress after 2006. I stopped reading the article at that point.
Hell. I couldn’t stop myself. Bartlett claimed, “The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.” A report he linked to. So I read the report. His claim is B.S. I suppose he counted on no one bothering to click on through and read the report, and just take his word for its content.
Sorry. Pinning the current fiscal disaster on Bush, or even worse the Republicans in general, to allow Obama and the Democrats to skirt responsibility doesn’t fly. Which is exactly the point the writer was trying to make, that the current fiscal problem is more the fault of Bush then Obama.
As if Obama hasn’t been in Washington since 2004. As if Obama wasn’t part of the Democratic majority in Congress after 2006. Nope no responsibility there! It’s all the Republicans fault.
Even if one buys Bartlett’s exaggerated premise, it doesn’t speak to the new direction the current Republican party is going. Funny how motivating all those Tea Party extremists can be.
Bruce Bartlett is quite a character. His bio makes for interesting reading. Couldn’t you have found some source from Cato or Reason instead?