Just like his counterparts Chambliss, Coburn and Crapo in the Senate.

Either that or Grover Norquist and his “cutting deductions=raising taxes” acolytes are a bunch of disingenuous clueless lemmings.

that everybody pays. Everybody. Got income, pay taxes. One of the reasons there’s not so much resistance to the growth of government is that half the people don’t pay a dime.

Personally, I prefer a flat tax, one rate for all, absolutely no deductions or credits. I’d take two rates, reluctantly, as long as there are no deductions and no exemptions.

An example for clarity: earn $100,000 with a 17% flat rate, your tax bill is $17,000. Earn $5000 working part time with a 17% flat rate and your tax bill is $850. Everybody pays a flat percentage of income.

The one other wrinkle I’d like to see is that corporate taxes drop to zero. Dividend income is taxed at the “personal” rate. No death taxes. We can quibble about capital gains.

What is fair about taxing some doctors and lawyers at close to 35%, while Buffett only pays 17% on his millions simply because they are profits from stocks and dividends?

The thing is the doctors and lawyers in question can reduce said tax burden if they wish to invest more of their income-which is what Buffett does. Capital gains are insidious because they are a direct disincentive on investment growth and job creation.

As far as this diary goes, a better title might be Paul Ryan will raise tax revenues.

And he will. By cutting rates, streamlining the tax code, and growing the economy. And cut the deficit even more than the CBO estimates predict.

For the life of me, I can’t see where the down side is. Maybe Grover Norquist can dumb it down for me.

Money donated to charity directly benefits the poor and needy, and also benefits the government. When someone in the 28 percent bracket donates a dollar to a soup kitchen or another charity supported by United Way, or even a public university, the donor is only really paying 72 cents, and the feds are in it for 28 cents. Take away that dollar completely, and the government would have to chip in for the entire dollar, or take on the work as a govt operation. If the donor sees no deduction, then the donor would be donating the same amount by giving 72 cents, leaving the charity to find the remaining 28 cents while having less money to find it. It makes no sense for the feds to want to provide the money directly if the work of the charity is worthy of support.

So, if the government is going to be in the business of supporting the needy, it is in their interest to offer incentives for donors, the same way that cities and counties give businesses tax breaks. I’m not arguing which side is right, just that the situation exists.

Here’s why:
The statement is made everywhere that lower-income taxpayers are disadvantaged because they cannot itemize deductions. This is patently ridiculous when you analyze the numbers. Renters Mr. and Mrs. Lunchbucket cannot itemize, but donate $4,000 to their church. Since they are under the amount for the standard deduction ($11,400), they take that as their deduction, which is more than $4,000. So they get to deduct $7,400 from their income that they did not have to spend. By contrast, people who itemize deductions over $11,400 have to spend every dollar they are deducting. So who ends up benefiting from the existence of deductions: the Lunchbucket Family and the charities who got the donations from those that itemize. The presence and use of the “Standard Deduction” is most often omitted from most discussions on this topic, and it likely directly results in many lower-middle class “taxpayers” not paying any taxes.

This is another reason to refute the idea (often promoted by the real estate industry) that mortgage interest is entirely tax-deductible. On its own, where a taxable entity only has mortgage interest and some property taxes, only that amount above the standard deduction is truly the benefit of itemizing, because that same entity could claim the standard deduction without paying one penny. You could say that the standard deduction subsidizes renters, and therefore is assistance to landlords.

instead of lowering them. He lowered tax rates but increased the tax revenue.

Very good. And said economy is growing because….

I’ll take my answer off the air.

It’s fun to watch the liberal politicians try to step up to the plate and swing the bat like they’re a major league player. They let the bat rest on their shoulder and claim the umpire hates the fans that’s why they can’t get a hit. The GOP leaders are swinging the bat and getting hits along the way. Hence Paul Ryan’s proposed budget that has the liberal’s running around claiming the GOP is going bring this country to it’s knees. This reminds me when Prop 13 was being debated in Calif in 1978. I specifically remember seeing a bumper sticker saying “If your house catches on fire call Jarvis/Gann to put it out”. The premise being that Firefighters would be cut back to the point that they would not be able to respond to house fires. Now we hear the same thing from the liberals….except Seniors will be put out on the streets with nothing to eat. When will the liberals learn that the scare tactics don’t work…oh…that’s right they’re the ones in charge of education…as long as they can keep our children brainwashed they’ll continue with the lie.

it has been proven that 11% flat tax gives the most return plus economic growth, PERIOD. The problem is not taxes it is the size of govt., PERIOD. Drastically reduce the size of govt. and revenue would not be a problem, PERIOD. Anyone who tells you it is a revenue problem is a socialist, PERIOD. My father always told me that one day we would have to starve the bureaucrats out of their jobs someday. Better than blowing up their offices I guess.