George Will on Paul Ryan’s Plan

This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose of every dollar they put into these accounts.

I can agree with Will on this one, as long as we recognize that most of the provisions in the tax code he references are put there at the behest of business lobbyists that Congress wants to be "nice" to, perhaps because they've received, and hope to receive more, massive campaign contributions from them.

Of course, the Citizens United decision will just lead to more of this sadism, so I guess that means people who support CU are masochists.

I happen to have credentials on this one. I worked for years on the Senate Finance Committee staff, which has jurisdiction over all tax matters in the Senate, and as a senior official at the Treasury Dept.

But I look forward to hearing (and receiving vitriolic abuse, no doubt) from those of you who have no relevant experience and haven't really read or thought much about it, but still manage to have very strong opinions. ;)

Isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing.

Why does Ryan propose such a complicated system? How about zero taxes up to some poverty level and a single tax rate for anything above that level?

And "no deductions, credits or exclusions, other than the health-care tax credit" is just asking for trouble. First Ryan allows the health-care tax credit. Then some other politician proposes some other "worthy" deduction. Surely we want to promote home ownership, so we need a mortgage interest deduction. What about couples struggling to raise their kids? - surely they deserve deductions for each bundle of joy. And when Congress is done manipulating Ryan's bill, we end up with the same complicated mess we have now.

I completely agree with you. Particularily your comment that the new development should fit in with the existing architecture. I think that should be mandatory!

Tax laws are one of the favorite tools of social engineers.
Through these laws they can encourage or discourage behavior as they see fit, and they are not about to give up that power with a flat tax.

"Today’s tax system was shaped by sadists who were trying to be nice."

That line has just been added to my list of great quotes.

More Abused Wife Enabler Syndrome from a Republican. That is the Dem's and the Repubs, make a mess, and every now and then, for a few years, a crew comes along and tidy's up the joint and pretends the spouse isn't a drunk, spendthrift, child abusing lout.

I think you will have to exempt the first $50,000 to make it fly....But democrats will say it's unfair anyway. Rich don't pay enough. You will have to change the whole public education system to get people to understand it. That is, teach capitalism instead of socialism.

Flat tax? Never gonna happen. And its the spending that matters anyway.

And its the spending that matters anyway.

Exactly and always the case.

I agree. I think it was Ron Paul that said we could eliminate income taxes if we pared spending back to 1994 levels. Amazing how the government has grown in the last 15 years with Republicans no less. And amazing how it's grown in the past year.

Good thing we're freezing some spending at these high levels. I wouldn't mind getting a 20% raise now if that meant I didn't get a raise next year.

Of all issues, this is the one that the public debate needs to focus on so that it creeps into public awareness.

Tax levels are irrelevant if spending increases. Taxing the rich is irrelevant.

All resources and consumables are the output of value producing labor.

The wealthy do not produce resources comparable to their accumulated entitlements, and do not possess sufficient consumables to make a difference to the non wealthy.

The idea that the rich can be made to pay for the benefits that must be produced by those that labor to create value is just wrong.

Two comments:

1. most members of the GOP will never buy this, they sold their souls to K Street a long time ago

2. raising the Social Security age is one more cheap shot at blue collar workers, a group the GOP despises but uses to get elected - ever try to finish concrete at the age of 70?

(1) Exactly.

(2) ditto

I agree. We should abolish Social Security (and pay back with interest to all people who have already paid into the system) and let all people retire whenever they want to.

You could do that but pretty much all of that money going to social security will NOT go to you or workers. It will go to CEO salaries and dividends so it would be a really stupid thing to do. Unless of course you are someone who thinks billionaires need a a little more.

even if it were theoretically true that "pretty much all of that money... will go to CEO salaries and dividends," that would certainly NOT be a really stupid thing to do. It's not a question of whether "billionaires need a little more"; it's a whether you want to allow people and corporations to keep their own money or pay more of it to the government. Yes, I far prefer that individuals and corporations keep more of their money than be forced to pay it to the government.... which, apparently, you seem to think "need a little more"... :-)

half the money going to Social Security (which is paid by employees) would go back to the employees; the other half, which is paid by employers, would surely go toward higher salaries. When an employer calculates the cost of hiring an employee, the employer calculates all costs, including salary, medicare and social security taxes, benefits, etc. If an employer pays an employee eg. $60,000, that means the employee is actually worth 60K plus all the extra costs incurred to the employer. If you eliminate those costs, the employer could raise employee salaries at no extra cost. (in fact, the cost would be less, because the employer would pay less in accounting fees).

That should read "let all people retire when they afford to - if at all".

Fantastic article, seems much simpler and I like the idea of both a flat(ter) tax rate and PSAs for healthcare. But does the tax credit apply to just poorer people or everyone??

I can't help but laugh when I hear anyone talk about bringing sanity and fairness to a tax system. I have been waiting over 50 years for someone to explain to me how to make taxes sane and/or fair. Isn't taxation theft?

A short essay on taxation that even a libertarian might understand:


Theft is theft. Taxation is the way we PREVENT theft. Ya see I'm 6 foot 10 with lots of thug friends, guns and ammo and I'd like to just come to your place and conk you on the head, take your woman and children and your money too but taxation is preventing me from doing so.

Too subtle an argument for them, I'm afraid, muirgeo.

Not subtle, just dumb.

And if I'm armed and decent folk were likewise armed, then it matters not if a thug is 6' 9". On the other hand, if the thug has an army of agents to apply it's extortion, then I'm SOL.

The Supreme court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect citizens from criminals.

George and others seem to be under the impression that political agency can do no wrong against its citizens.

And that is why I used my Baltimore example. I am happy to pay taxes for certain government services such as police, courts, and prisons to protect citizens. Problem is the Baltimore and Maryland government has public protection as some sort of secondary objective. They won't arrest violent people, and when they do the criminals are let right back out. So government fails in its most basic responsibilities. And Muirgeo's team is in charge. Go figure.

Disclaimer: I hate both parties in charge.

I think there is a flaw in the supposition that provision of policing is "unique" as a service.

Certainly government frequently exhibits the characteristics of the so-called market monopolies it's supposed to protect us against.

So by your logic, Baltimore should be the safest city on the planet, but it is not. It has high taxes, and Democrats in charge (been in charge forever). But alas, Baltimore is one of the most violent cities in the country. It also has high poverty, high drug addiction, and crappy government services.

You never tire of trotting out the fallacies, do you?

This particular fallacy consists of assuming, as a premise, that a certain function -- police and law enforcement -- can only be paid for by taxation. From this premise you commit the non sequitur of concluding that since taxation is necessary to prevent theft, it itself is not theft.

In the first place, your premise is false. For an explanation of how government can be financed in a non-coercive, non-tax manner, see Ayn Rand's essay "Government Financing in a Free Society", from her book, "The Virtue of Selfishness".

(Though I encourage everyone to read the article, I’ll just mention one example of voluntary financing Rand discuses. Enforcement of contracts is a valid government function. A legally fixed fee could be charged for all commercial and credit contracts that the parties want the legal power to enforce via the courts. No one would be forced to pay this fee, but if they did not, they'd not have access to the courts and thus would have no way of enforcing the contract. Obviously, the great majority of businesses would choose to pay the fee, because an unenforceable contract is not worth much. In a 17 trillion dollar economy, such a fee would raise enormous sums. But that’s just one example of how large sums for government can be raised voluntarily.)

However, even if your premise were true, it doesn’t prove what you claim. A theft is a theft no matter what is done with the proceeds, including if the proceeds are used to fund a police department that prevents far greater thefts as well as prevents more serious crimes.

What’s more, it is an egregiously false non sequitur to claim that since some amount of taxation is necessary to pay for one government function, any amount of taxation is justified to pay for anything government wishes to do.

There is a fundamental distinction between a theft of my funds that is required to pay for a value that I’ve received -- the value of police protection for my person, the persons of my family and my property -- VERSUS a theft of my funds, in exchange for nothing, that goes into the pocket of any moocher or looter that can convince the government he “needs” it more than I.

The former I’d pay happily --- the latter I condemn utterly. And nothing about the alleged necessity of the former justifies the latter.

Oh, I get it now!. A woman was raped, robbed, and then murdered last night. Her assailant was six-feet, nine-inches tall. Government only prevents crimes committed by those who are exactly six-feet, ten-inches tall.

Thanks for clarifying that, Yasafi.

Sounds a lot like government agents.

As usual muirduck is stuck in stupidity.

We the American people are taxed to our armpits and, as I understand it, with certainty that taxation did not prevent Bernie (or any of the other thieves of this nation, large or small) from stealing billions.

On a pure market basis, taxation as a means of preventing theft, as the Teacup Chihuahua suggests, is about as stupid an idea as get be advanced.

All those who steal our money through taxation can do is in 99% of the cases, respond, take statements, investigate, and hopefully actually find out who did it, capture them, and god forbid actually recover the stolen goods. Unfortunately on a pure market basis they aren't even able to show a decent track record in that.

Furthermore, none of taxation was able to produce an educational system that would teach a certain George in California to think.

I’ve watched Paul Ryan for some time, and am generally impressed with his stances and ideas.

Recently, however, Ryan made some favorable observations about Peter Orszag, OMB Director, and ex-CBO director, who is a dishonest economic scumbag of the highest order. He purports to want to straighten out the fiscal mess, then he and Obamalini propose a budget with $2.5 trillion in taxes, and $3.8 trillion in spending last week. He claims that the proposed health reform legislation will save money. It will do no such thing, and he knows it. It was Mr. Orszag who very underhandedly disguised the actual costs within the proposals.

So Mr. Ryan needs to correct this misstatement about Mr. Orszag, who is actually the problem, not part of the solution.

This is the testimony I referenced: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/testimony/...

I see you attended the muigeo school of economics reading miscomprehension.

If I have to explain the blatant and gargantuan hypocrisy of 1) branding oneself as a "deficit hawk," then 2) committing the single largest budgetary crime in the past century, then you're dumber than I thought. Good lord.

He has no intention (nor do any of these liars currently in office) of reducing spending, because that runs contrary to the program, which is maximum expenditure, and maximum expansion of government power. Period.

And you can shove your precious "it's not federal revenue" straight up your sizable ass, which currently also houses your head.

He is a scumbag and a liar, and you continue to be a tool. Why are you still talking? I mean, seriously, dude, get a freakin' clue. And piss off.

Are you even capable of holding a normal conversation with people? The fact that you can't cite anything to support your accusations against Orszag, the fact that "you're dumb" constitutes your refutation of my understanding of the debt, and the fact that scatalogical references are all you can muster to justify your highly unorthodox understanding of public budgeting just reinforces the fact that these posts of yours are a waste of space on here.

See - and I managed to lay that out plainly without insulting your intelligence, your appearance, or anything else about you as a person - which is more than I can say about your response.

DK, talking to you is slightly less entertaining than being stabbed.

Of course, 1) it’s the cost, and 2) they will be federal revenues, even if not stipulated up front. Mandatory participation constituted a tax, and the tilted playing field in the exchanges created will drive up private insurance cost - mandate or not - and rig the game in the government's favor.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the endgame here, as stipulated by Barney Buttpilot himself was single payer, and both of these proposals contained means to that end, whether it be the public option, or strict participation and regulation in the “insurance exchanges” themselves. Within a decade most, if not all, major health insurers will exit the space, and the federal government will be running it.

And so-called death panels are absolutely in these plans. You’re a fool, moron, and economic charlatan not to know this: What happens absent a market-clearing price mechanism? Say it with me everyone – Rationing! Yes, welcome to Britain (or worse). That’s precisely what would be determined by the Health dictator (or a proxy/subordinate thereof) created by these proposals. It would necessarily have to occur, because there is no other mechanism for cost containment.

And the cost? You think $2 trillion is a lot? Horsecrap. The actual cost will be closer to $3 – 5 trillion, over 10 years. Yes, that much, possibly more. Again, you’re a fool to believe otherwise, given the stellar track record of Congressional entitlement cost prediction.

And Orszag and you want to do this in this fiscal environment. Complete, total, utter bullshit.

So, please go home now, little boy, because you are very confused and tiresome. Go away.

RE: "What happens absent a market-clearing price mechanism? Say it with me everyone – Rationing! "

Yes - that's exactly what happens when you remove the price mechanism. Why do you think I have CONSISTENTLY opposed the mandate on here? Why do you think I have CONSISTENTLY opposed single payer on here. The fact that you're right that the mandate is bad policy doesn't mean your view of Orszag or the budget makes any sense.

RE: "Mandatory participation constituted a tax, and the tilted playing field in the exchanges created will drive up private insurance cost"

ANY regulation imposes costs and therefore may have an impact like a tax. Are you going to advocate putting all costs from all regulation in the budget? You're making no sense. Why would you put something in the revenue side of the budget that they can't appropriate on the spending side of the budget? Since when has "it's a cost" been a reason to use it as a budget number? I'm mandated to have a seatbelt in my car. That car would have been cheaper if I could buy one without a seatbelt. Should the fed's jot down the extra few bucks as tax revenue? Come on - be serious for once.

LMAO @ Barney Buttpilot

Good lord - how old are you?

1. Can't you just say you disagree with Orszag, rather than calling him a "dishonest economic scumbag"?, because

2. You're going to have a hard time finding people who place an especially large amount of emphasis on the FY2011 budget when they talk about our "fiscal mess" - the concern is usually with the long-term budget, which is driven by forces that are very different from the current deficit.

As for your links, could you explain your statement about Orszag's views on physician reimbursement. You never actually quote him saying that that reimbursement won't increase, so I'm wondering why you think he said that. My recollection is that Orszag was praised specifically for insisting that the likely increasing reimbursements be included in the budget projections, when previously they hadn't. In this 2009 testimony, he makes the case for making projections as if reimbursements will increase, and as he states that adds $400 billion to the budget (that wouldn't have been counted before). In other words, Orszag seems to be treating physician reimbursements precisely how you think he should be treating them. So what are you talking about when you say that he "disguised the actual costs"? What are you refering to, exactly? You leave it pretty vague, so I'm not sure what you're refering to. I think his support for the IMAC in the health reform legislation is for exactly this reason - he's concerned about these reimbursement increases, and MedPAC currently isn't effectively controlling them.

As for your second link, I've never heard the case before that premiums for mandated health plans should be treated as federal revenue. Why? Those premiums don't go to the Treasury. Congress can't appropriate those premiums. I've been a huge critic of the mandate, but even I don't think that makes sense.

At last, a rational voice enters the fray. But beware, dk, you will confuse them with evidence.

Which is why I ask mesa for some citation besides an opinion article. If he can't agree with me, I hope he can at least furnish facts that agree with him.

Good luck, my friend.

I've found that this hope is OCCASSIONALLY fulfiled by a few folks on this site, and more power to 'em.

But I'm not sure most of them know the difference between evidence and opinion.

Messing with the current tax code is about the stupidest thing an intelligent person can do.

The people who believe in a National Sales Tax particularly are enemies of the people. It will never eliminate the IRS, it will simply be another burden on top of the burden you assume now.

A sales tax would be an excise tax, not an income tax.

And, it would make it extremely difficult for folks who know and act on the truth.

As it stands, the tax code is written in your favor, you just don't want to study it enough to learn the truth, and on top of that you are terrified of government to the point of being willing to live on you knees rather than learn the truth and stand for the first time in your life.

It is written in the favor of those who study it. The cost of setting up a business entity, and choosing not to be a slave, is a pittance. The added cost of hiring an accountant and attorney are miniscule compared to enslavement. The benefits are phenomenal. It's not an accident that America is run by small businesses -- America is run by people who are (relatively) free.

What a 'slave'? Being an employee? Why? Because a business owner can deduct business expenses pre-tax? Last I looked Libertarians were complaining about 'tax-slavery' not 'wage slavery'. How are you paying taxes and not being a 'slave'?

slave- a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person.

As an "employee" the only rights you have with your employer are those that have been negotiated by a third party (government). Your employer determines your responsibilities, the government determines your rights. The only right an employee has is to decide whether or not to take the job. The government negotiated a deal for you that states your gross earnings are taxable, the employer must pay taxes for the employee (which the employee can petition to have returned), and that the employer must pay several additional taxes which are based on gross pay.

None of these deals the government has put in place to "protect" employees apply to the self-employed.

Been reading too much "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" books?

No. Just being a dad and navigating life.

Yes, all you say is true, but it goes beyond that.

A law simply can not be made that compels performance, and none has been.

It is just one more of their big lies.

"A law simply can not be made that compels performance, and none has been."

What does that mean?

"If you can't be bothered to getting an income (living off the land, getting welfare/charity, etc.) then you don't have to pay income taxes"?

"The tax office taxes people on profit not losses" (though there are a few exceptions where you pay tax whilst generating a loss I hear)?

"Better to have a low income and stay in a low tax bracket than to have a high income and mired in a high tax bracket"?

"A law simply can not be made that compels performance, and none has been."

Since you seem to be struggling with the wording, I'll simplify it for you.

There is no moral or legal authority for a law to be made that compels a free man to act, in any capacity or for any others' gain, and none has been.

There does that help you out?

Do you see the assumed income tax in that statement? You should.

Actually making a law in essence of "if you don't perform you're in a helluva lot of trouble" does work. People don't voluntary go to jail or shoot tax collector en masse for some reason.

See above, simple one.

Somehow if I threatened you do to my bidding lest I kill your closest loved ones who are trapped in my dungeon I doubt you're going to tell them goodbye because "no one makes of a slave out of vidyohs". Or if you somehow have found a way to kill off governments once and for all without much effort or sacrifice then you'd be sharing this secret with every Libertarian you could find.

The tax code is written in our favor? Yeah, ok. Spending hours doing your own taxes or hiring someone to fill out the forms is the best system we can have. Some of us would prefer to do other things than paying taxes or studying the tax code. Any improvement is a good thing even if it is imperfect; this is the best we can hope for from democracy.

Smile sir, I have good news.

"Some of us would prefer to do other things than paying taxes or studying the tax code."

Studying the form of government you have and the tax code it produced will lead you to the understandings and wisdom to do other things than pay taxes!

Yes, vidyohs! To the barricades! It's time to overthrow our democratic-republican form of government!

Oh yeah! You have discovered a legal loophole where you don't pay any taxes yet won't tell fellow Libertarians because it will be closed as soon as politicians find out there's this loophole.

Poor Gil,

Is it possible for one to be so simple.

I have told you, I have told them, You won't pay attention, and they are too afraid.

Politicians don't have to do anything as long as men chain themselves through fear.

And, last, if the politicians in this country could make a law to compel action, it would already have been done.

As a matter of fact we had a long war in this country the run-up to, and fighting of resulted in the politicians doing exactly the opposite of what you think, and confirming that slavery can not and will not exist in the USA. It is called the 13th amendment.

Vis-a-vis taxation, they left us to figure it out. Many have.

Cast off your chains!!

By the way, you need to read something about the 13th Amendment. You might be less likely to embarrass yourself.

I know, it's a tall order.

I sure jails have a whole wing full of people who think that they can use the 13th Amendment to avoid paying taxes.

Please, Gil. Do some homework before you speak up. There's no connect between the 13th and paying taxes.

Anyone who would cite the 13th as a defense for not paying taxes is either a kook or has one for an attorney.

Gee, vidyohs reckons he can find magical ways to avoid taxes then veers to the 13th Amendment. Who's the kook?

Lame brained Gil farts and a Publius_Texus blows through.

Your brand of stupidity just plain stinks.

And you, vidyohs, are what follows. You should have learned by now, grasshoppa, never trust a fart.

Yeah if the majority of people were Libertarians and shot dead every politician and burned down every public building then anarcho-Capitalism would be achieved overnight yet that isn't happening. On the other hand, if people stop performing because there are taxes and regulation then all 'statist' societies would disappear overnight yet that hasn't happened either. You like walking around in Anarchtopia talking to the people you meet yet just as things get interesting, the alarm goes off and you're back to the real world.

From Will's article:
"no deductions, credits or exclusions, other than the health-care tax credit (see below)."

and (the "below"):

"All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs -- tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses."

Isn't this another complication? If we're not allowing tax deductions, why do we need this one? Allow one, allow all?

I hope that's 10% on income up to $100,000 and 25% on income above $100,000?

That's the only way it makes sense.

A flat tax is one flat rate - period. Having two rates where higher earners above a certain level get hit with the higher rate is pretty much the same as what goes on now, i.e. tax brackets. You could say the U.S. already the flat tax at six different rates depending on how much you earn.

Yes! Purity!

If I paid 10% on all income up to $50,000 and 25% on income above $50,000, I would be paying a tax rate very similar to what I pay now once all deductions and credits are considered in the current tax structure.

Are you including the time, energy, and expense you undertake to claim all of those deductions and credits? If Rep. Ryan's plan were enacted I wouldn't need to hire a tax preparer and worry about being audited.

I was only considering the bottom dollar in my analysis. Of course with the time I spend every year to research new tax changes and gathering reciepts and other supporting documentation, I spend a lot of time preparing my taxes (i do them myself).

I support any simplification in the tax code. The point I was making is that his proposed marginal tax rates, before any medical deductions are about the same as I pay now.

I assume so, yes. I would jump at a chance to pay those simplified rates.

just to clarify my first post above: I noted Ryan's voting for the bailout as a negative, not a positive. (Though I do think he may be one of the strongest voices for fiscal responsibility, ironically!)

I generally like Paul Ryan. Two quick points, for whatever they are worth:

1. Ryan spent lots of time in the fall of 2008 trying to convince skeptical Republican colleagues to vote for Bush's $700 billion bailout.

2. Ryan's tax plan of an optional flat tax with rates of 10% and 25% is very similar - perhaps nearly identical - to the plan proposed by Fred Thompson during his presidential run http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312785,00.html

Did I miss the obvious? If the flat tax is "optional", then wouldn't we expect people to continue claiming deductions if they have a net tax benefit for them? How does it simplify our current complicated mess to have another option?