republican plan: Soak The Middle Class

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Free Thinker, Jun 25, 2012.

  1. its funny watching the resident right wingnuts defend tax cuts for the rich. most of you will never see high end taxes. the republicans are planning to go after you. the middle to lower end:

    Republicans want the broad middle class to pay more taxes than they currently do, and the upper class to pay significantly less.

    This time around, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, with the help of data from the Tax Policy Center, take a look at the House GOP tax plan in Paul Ryan’s budget, and reach an important conclusion: If he honors his commitment to keeping his plan revenue neutral, middle class taxpayers will see their tax burden increase, while the wealthiest Americans will enjoy a huge tax cut.

    The idea is pretty straightforward.

    Republicans want to dramatically lower the top tax rate and eliminate brackets so there are only two — one at 25 percent, one at 10 percent. That would put a huge amount of cash in the pockets of high income earners. For middle class earners, it’d be a much more modest sum. To make the plan revenue neutral, Ryan claims Republicans would close myriad loopholes that disproportionately benefit the upper-middle and upper classes — he just won’t say which ones.

    The rub is that Ryan’s tax cuts are expensive and to pay for ithem he’d likely have to clawback the biggest middle-class tax benefits — like the mortgage interest deduction, and the tax exclusion on employer health benefits — such that the net effect for people making less than $200,000 would be a higher annual tax burden. The plan redistributes wealth upwards.
  2. Arnie


    by William Bigelow21 Jun 20125post a comment

    The Washington Post released a column Wednesday in which they claim that the tax reform plan proposed by House Republicans would “sharply cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and could leave middle-class households facing much larger tax bills.”

    This claim was substantiated by an analysis due to be released later in the day that was “prepared by Senate Democrats and reviewed by nonpartisan tax experts.”

    Of course, those tax experts come from “the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.” And the Tax Policy Center is an arm of the – drum roll, please...

    Brookings Institution.

    The Brookings Institution? That Brookings Institution? The leftist institution that even Politico acknowledges is clearly liberal?

    How liberal is Brookings? Ask Discover the Networks:

    Brookings has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including the Global Governance Initiative, which aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government, based in part on economic and Third World considerations. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003. The Brookings Institution’s President since 2002 has been Strobe Talbott, who served as President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State. The Board of Trustees features Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of John Kerry; Zoe Baird, failed Clinton appointee for Attorney General.

    But wait; the Tax Policy Center is also identified as being supported by another entity. Perhaps that’s why WaPo identifies them as non-partisan.

    And that entity is -- drum roll, please...

    The Urban Institute.

    The Urban Institute? That Urban Institute? How liberal are they?

    Let’s return to Discover the Networks:

    In 1980, UI called for socialized health care in the United States, and in 1982 began a running critique of the Reagan Administration under its Changing Domestic Priorities Project; the critique ran to 26 volumes, with research paid for by the Ford Foundation. In 1990, UI put together a similar critique of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In the wake of the Los Angeles riots in 1992, UI became a leading policy-center apologist for urban black violence, focusing on societal and economic, rather than moral and criminal, factors in its analysis of the riots. In 2001, UI and the Brookings Institution began collaboration on a Tax Policy Center (TPC) to discredit President George W. Bush’s tax cut plans, which UI claimed disproportionately and unjustly favored ‘the wealthy.’

    Does anyone truly trust the Washington Post to be non-partisan? Only about as non-partisan as Brookings, the Urban Institute, and the Tax Policy Center
  3. well, you might have to use your brain a little bit too. the republicans are counting on you fox educated right wingers tendency to not think too deeply.
    the money has to come from somewhere. if the republicans are able to give the rich a huge break and the promised cuts never happen. remember even reagan failed to get real cuts. just where do you think they are going to get the necessary money?
  4. Max E.

    Max E.

    In other words, because you spent your life as a trucker, those of us who made it into higher tax brackets should have to give YOU some of our money...... right?
  5. I think you can relax. There is no way congress is going to eliminate those popular tax deductions. Even trimming the mortgage deduction will have the real estate industry howling and with good reason. Why should second or third homes be penalized? Don't we want people buying homes and employing construction workers? Isn't that preferable to a government check? If you borrow money to buy stock or operate a business, it's deductible. Why shouldn't a mortage on a second or third home be deductible as well?

    The last time the government got as bright idea to reform the tax code by eliminating deductions, in 1987, they destroyed the real estate industry. The tax cuts? They disappeared a few years later when Clinton got in.

    The deduction for health insurance makes no sense whatsoever and is an historical anomaly, and it should be repealed. Repeal it though as part of insurance reform that lets consumers purchase from a nationwide market.
  6. Arnie


    Actually I watch way more MSNBC than Fox, thanks to my wife, who tends to be left of center. So I get Morning Joe and Chris Mathews everyday.

    My point was the article you posted made reference to where the cuts "might" come from. Its all conjecture on their part.

    What would you propose? Balance the budget on the top 1-10% so we can have a roller coatser economy like California?
  7. How about tax cuts for everyone, including the rich? How about a flat tax? How about an option to opt out of social security? How about some real choice instead of bickering around the problem?
  8. if you want the federal tax burden even lower than it is now. the lowest in generations, you have to accept even higher debt. there is no free lunch.
    flat tax is a pipe dream. it too regressive and lets the rich pay even less.

    opting out of social security will not and should not happen. when people are young and naive they will opt out foolishly thinking they wont need it. when they get old and broke in the streets someone else will have to pay their way. it should be means tested though.