Paul Ryan's massive tax hikes for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the very richest 1%

[TheBigotBasher]

Rep. Paul Ryan's tax and spending "roadmap" is a fascinating critter: conservatives all praise it to the skies but none of them want to actually commit to supporting it. The reason for their hesitation is obvious: Ryan's plan would cut spending dramatically, and supporting it would mean having to explain what, exactly, they'd cut. That would be electoral suicide and they know it. They much prefer their usual game of loudly denouncing "spending" without ever having to say what spending they're actually opposed to.

However, their reason for supporting Ryan's plan is also obvious: it would cut taxes on the rich dramatically, and there's nothing conservatives like better than cutting the tax bills of America's wealthy. But how much would it cut taxes on the rich? Citizens for Tax Justice has run the numbers and the answer is: a lot. The very richest of the rich would see their tax bills go down by an average of over $200,000, a whopping 15% of the income. Ka-ching! To make up for that, everyone with an income under $100,000 would have their taxes increased by about $2,000 per year.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/paul-ryans-plan-tax-you-more

Do you thing the Taxed Enough Already teabaggers know this? Do you think that the poorest of them marching with their little placards against big bad Government would be happy to know about Republican proposals?

[laughingliberal]

1. How soon before our push for 'bipartisanship' has our President out there saying the plan has merit?

Just shoot me, now. This is disgusting.

[cali]

11. quite simply? Never.

Obama is a disappointment in many ways, but there is exactly nothing in his history or tenure to indicate he'd support this. the mindless blurring of the real differences between Obama and most dems and the majority of repukes, is not a good thing.

[rfranklin]

2. The teabaggers all make over $500,000 a year...

that's why they like these tax cuts for the uberwealthy.

[TheBigotBasher]

4. Not all of them do

but the one who keep whipping them u in to a frenzy do and they will never reveal their plans.

[SharonAnn]

3. Thanks. This is good. I understand percentiles, but having the actual income numbers is best.

Many people don't know where they are in the income percentiles (or quintiles). So, when you say the bottom 20% or the top 1%, people don'e always know where they are in relation to that.

Having the actual annual income for each quintile and the upper percentiles makes it clear.

If you have income of less than $88,658 you'd get screwed big-time. That's 80% of the families.

[TheBigotBasher]

5. The tax rises bite at incomes up to $128k

Only if you earn above that do you gain.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. What a great plan! Bitch about deficits and then set out to lower revenue by $183 billion a year!

Now there's an idea the GOP show wear on their sleeves.

[n2doc]

7. This needs to be broadcast widely n/t

[NoNothing]

8. Chart doesn't match summary

The summary talks about absolute cuts and rises in taxes but the chart is showing differences between two proposals. E.g., if Ryan's proposal raised annual taxes on the top 10% by $1,000,000 but Obama raises it by $1,211,314 then the figures would be as presented. Likewise, the chart doesn't necessarily show that Ryan's proposal increases taxes on the poor. It could be that the poor simply receive $1,605 less in tax cuts.

In other words, this chart is proof that Ryan's proposal is more regressive than Obama's proposal. It doesn't say that taxes will go up on the bottom and down on the top as compared to current rates.

[TheBigotBasher]

9. The proposed national sales tax

is an absolute tax increase and that is why those on less than $128k lose out.

[NoNothing]

10. Not necessarily

I am not familiar with the Ryan proposal, but most national sales tax schemes include tax credits on the low end equal to the sales taxes on 100% of income. I'm just saying that this could be true even with the figures on the chart, if the Obama proposal would have included *even more* tax credits.

[TheBigotBasher]

12. What is clear is that under the Ryan proposals

people earning under $128 k will pay a lot more than under the Democratic plan. That is the issue.

[NoNothing]

13. Yes that is what I am saying

The summary says something different.

[indepat]

14. Lest no one be ignorant: every, that's every 'puke tax scheme is highly regressive, for that is, and

has been job #1. MFin' bastards, all. :P