Paul Ryan on poverty, conservatism, and the American Dream

NPR's Planet Money Endorses Gary Johnson for President

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012...policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

Not exactly, but more closely than one might expect. The producers of Planet Money are running a terrific series in which they asked a panel of economists whose views span the political spectrum what policies they think the perfect presidential candidate should adopt. It turns out that a lot of them echo the policy proposals of Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson. So what did Planet Money's panel of five economists agree on:

One: Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. Gone. After all, big houses get bigger tax breaks, driving up prices for everyone. Why distort the housing market and subsidize people buying expensive houses?

Two: End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. Neither employees nor employers pay taxes on workplace health insurance benefits. That encourages fancier insurance coverage, driving up usage and, therefore, health costs overall. Eliminating the deduction will drive up costs for people with workplace healthcare, but makes the health-care market fairer.

Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.

Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.

Five: Tax carbon emissions. Yes, that means higher gasoline prices. It's a kind of consumption tax, and can be structured to make sure it doesn't disproportionately harm lower-income Americans. More, it's taxing something that's bad, which gives people an incentive to stop polluting.

Six: Legalize mar1juana. Stop spending so much trying to put pot users and dealers in jail — it costs a lot of money to catch them, prosecute them, and then put them up in jail. Criminalizing drugs also drives drug prices up, making gang leaders rich.

All right, Johnson doesn't endorse all of these proposals, but he certainly does favor eliminating the corporate and individual income taxes and the payroll tax. As part of the plan to flatten taxes for everybody it could make sense to get rid of the health insurance and mortgage interest deductions. Johnson is against a carbon tax (and cap-and-trade), but such a tax could again be part of the overall tax reform package that switches to consumption taxes from the current recondite system of income taxes. In fact, a savvy politician who wants to rein in the size of government might favor a non-revenue-neutral carbon tax that takes in less revenue than the income taxes being replaced. And finally, all five economists endorse Johnson's view that the Drug War is a complete travesty.

 

No you didn't, you said 80 CEO's say that raising tax revenue and lowering spending will decrease the deficit. You didn't show me any CEO's that said "tax me more".

No, I trust congress to cut spending somewhere and increase it more somewhere else, likely wherever they think will gain them the most votes.

Leave education out of this discussion, I believe education is pivital in weening dependence on the government. All social programs are not equal and I don't believe those places have more welfare than the good ole USA.

 

I don't think I've ever heard someone express that belief before. After all isn't that what all the wingnuts are worried about? B.O. leading this nation towards the model of a European Socialist nation?

I can't claim to know any facts about it off hands either! Just my belief, like you.

But here's a graphic from the Wikipedia on "Welfare States" comparing the % of GDP each nation puts towards social welfare programs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Social-expenditures-2001-OCSE.png

 

I'll say this, I like your optimisim.

I wish I thought that your view of our Government were reality. I think that our government is made up of career politicians that are only concerned about getting reelected and making more money off their political careers. So I don't really think that our politicians are making decisions based on what they will do to our people or the government. They say and do what is necessary to get reelected. I wish that politics weren't so lucrative, maybe we would have more guys in there that are more interested in your vision and less likely to live out mine.

 

Thanks, and we can definitely agree there. This awful system and the politicians it spews out on both sides are Public Enemy No. 1.

 

So you think the 80 CEO's all believe that tax revenue should be raised on everyone else but them?

 

This is the same old tired argument that your side has made for so long, along the way somehow you sold it to yourself and think it was a good one.
I am going to say it once:
1) No one says tax, tax, tax is working. If it does, we would just tax everyone 100% and then we have everything solved.
2) Does it mean tax cut, tax cut, tax cut work then? If it does, we would just have 0% tax and we have everything solved.

Neither is true. Everyone knows that we have to have a balance of certain revenue and incentive for investment and growth. The difference between your side and mine is the level of taxation and who pays it.

You have two arguments,
3) Don't tax the rich, they are the engine of growth. That has been proved false the past 20 yrs.

4) Don't tax the rich, "they have the means to move jobs and business and where they live to avoid taxes. Taxes will force smart businesses to do business elsewhere ..."
This happens only because your side make laws to allow it to happen. This argument is similar to this: "You can't catch the criminals, they are too rich or too smart to be caught, let's just abolish the law against criminal activities."
This is idiotic.

Like I said, USA is great for some, and greater for some others. If you believe that crap, if you candidates believe that craps, come out and say so, don't deceive American people

Wrong. Where have you been? The big guys with money had done so much damages even with the government watching them. Have you forgotten about Enron, about the Housing meltdown, about Bear Stearns .... You must have Romnesia?

 

Ok, since your reading comprehension is weak, he did not show me any CEOs or you or anyone else. Read all his posts and come up with one name of one CEO anywhere in any of his posts.

But, obviously you can raise tax revenue without taxing CEOs, it is a very general statement that is so fundamental and simplistic that any child could come up with it. Raise more money and spend less and you will decrease the deficit. Duh.

 

Paul Ryan on poverty: Hey poor people! You're dumb and lazy! **** you!

 

Ok, how's this. I would be less than thrilled but still willing to pay more in taxes. My parents paid more and seemingly had more opportunity that people in my generation have. Why would I be ok with this? I spend less than I take in by a wide margin.

We *have* to raise taxes to get out of this absurdly large deficit. Now if you don't want to do your part to help our country, then shut the f*** up about how much you love this country. Leave. Go to Somalia, they have *really* low taxes and none of the fun benefits of a first world country. To repeat, either help out the country as a whole or get out. I'm sorry you've spent more than you make and can't afford to pay more, but that mentality isn't going to help America in the long run.

 

Nobody likes taxes but responsible adults who have an interest in being part of a modern society understand they're necessary for the function of a government in a 21st century world. Your kind wants to live in the 19th century and if you dislike taxes and the federal government so much then I would suggest moving to Afghanistan. There you can live the life, create your own militia, build your own roads and schools free of federal government intrusion.

 

I love this discussion.

I have pissed off all the libs. They are so wound up about not getting to pay more taxes they want me to join a third world country and build my own roads. LOL!

This is so full of awesome I can't hardly stand it. Thank you Clutch for making this wonderful place to stir the pot.... Woot!

 

I'm not sure anyone is pissed off.

 

Your probably right FB but apparently I'm not a responsible adult and I don't want to do my part.

Just between you and me, I'm pretty sure I'm doing my part on the taxes thing.

 

Not if you are advocating to lower them even further.

 

LOL, so the fact that I pay my taxes fully every year to the tune of 30-40% of my income isn't enough? Why, because your man Obama wants to spend 1.3 Trillion dollars in deficit? I need to man up cause Obama needs a brand new golf outing.

I guess that from your prospective, a nice raise in your welfare check and food stamps allotment is only coming if I do a little more.

 

And your lack of honest information rears its ugly head again. I will renew my request for you to get some education, you are sorely lacking.

 

I know, liberals are the only ones with educations, honesty, and information. All us poor uneducated conservatives should just let you guys have the reins and we'll sit in the back of the bus and enjoy the ride.

Just let us know when the bus runs out of gas.

 

Yeah, it's funny. You don't want to pay your taxes but you'd like me to pay mine plus some. Your taxes build ****. If you don't pay taxes, **** doesn't get built. That's how that works.

 

There are plenty of educated, honest conservatives. You don't appear to be a member of that group, based on your lack of knowledge and honest information evidenced over the last couple of days in these threads.