DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
Aaaaahhhh...it's unfortunate how the lack of change is comforting when we need so very much of it. http://budget.house.gov/prosperity/#solutions quote:
Reforms our broken tax code to spur job creation and economic opportunity by lowering rates, closing loopholes, and putting hardworking taxpayers ahead of special interests. Did anyone else see the missing information from the OP? Lemme redo that quote, but this time, I'll put the key in bold. quote:
Reforms our broken tax code to spur job creation and economic opportunity by lowering rates, closing loopholes, and putting hardworking taxpayers ahead of special interests. I don't doubt that lowering the rates will be a $150k tax cut for the average millionaire+. However, what is the effect of closing the loopholes going to do? According to Rep. Ryan, coupling the reduction in tax rates (and the reduction to just two tax brackets) with the closing of loopholes doesn't change revenues. They wash each other out. We bring in as much as we are bringing in now. Couple that with spending decreases and you reduce deficits, and, hopefully, debt. The spending reductions in MedicAid/Care both come from cost decreases from competitiveness and patient choice. What I have noticed over the past few years is that one Party will only take one aspect of a bill and use it to bludgeon the other Party in the Court of Public Opinion, instead of taking the bill as a whole and giving all the details. Of course the former Party and latter Party are opposite sides of the aisle. The Former Party, which I'm not going to name, either starts with an R or a D, depending, of course, on which Party (D or R) wrote the bill. Thus, we have the Democrats (this time) railing over one aspect of the Republican (this time) budget, without looking at anything else. I like the 25% rate. What I would have preferred to see, however, is an initial drop to 30% and then 1% every year after that until we got to 25%. The loophole closures would have gone into place immediately, and in full. Thus, we'd have a more aggressive budget deficit attack for those first 5 years. Unfortunately, I don't see Paul Ryan's budget plan raising employment massively in the beginning. I think we'd see an initial plateau as IRS workers were shed at the same rate as private employment rose.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|