Paul Ryan: I don't have time to explain our tax plan.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

GOP wonderboy and Mitt Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, told Chris Wallace during a Fox News interview that he didn’t have time to explain the Romney/Ryan tax plan.  Here’s a partial transcript of the exchange:

WALLACE: So how much would it cost?

RYAN: It’s revenue neutral…

WALLACE: No no, I’m just talking about cuts. We’ll get to the deductions, but the cut in tax rates.

RYAN: The cut in tax rates is lowering all Americans’ tax rates by 20 percent.

WALLACE: Right, how much does that cost?

RYAN: It’s revenue neutral.

WALLACE: But I have to point out, you haven’t given me the math.

Ryan: No, but you…well, I don’t have the time. It would take me too long to go through all of the math. But let me say it this way: you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class. For things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we’re saying is, people are going to get lower tax rates.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So basically

"I can fix America!"

"How?"

"I don't have time to explain, just trust me."

Sounds legit.

[HongKong2LA 9]

Sounds perfectly reasonable, it's...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Since he doesn't have time to explain the plan I'm gonna say that I don't have time to vote that ticket.

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

So basically

"I can fix America!"

"How?"

"I don't have time to explain, just trust me."

Sounds legit.

sounds like we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it.

[JohnR! 5,495]

sounds like we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Apparently Ryan is no different than Nancy Pelosi.. :rofl:

No wonder the conservative center is not happy with him being on the ticket.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Gegel

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So it's a month before the election. When is the right time to "go through all the math"?

[^_^ 5,021]

So it's a month before the election. When is the right time to "go through all the math"?

Every budget proposal is based on so many assumptions as to make them all more or less meaningless. What will growth be in the 3rd quarter of 2015? What will the rate of unemployment be in 2014? How will manufacturing hold up in 2016? How will housing starts do in the summer of 2013 in Florida and Las Vegas? "Estimate" all those and project. That's what a budget is. The math is pointless.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Every budget proposal is based on so many assumptions as to make them all more or less meaningless. What will growth be in the 3rd quarter of 2015? What will the rate of unemployment be in 2014? How will manufacturing hold up in 2016? How will housing starts do in the summer of 2013 in Florida and Las Vegas? "Estimate" all those and project. That's what a budget is. The math is pointless.

That's not the math that Ryan is asked to explain. They are proposing a 20% rate cut across the board. That is going to cost approximately $5TN over a decade. They are proposing to close loopholes to make it revenue neutral. Now, there are roughly $1TN in loopholes in the tax code. Deductions for charitable donations, mortgage interest, student loan interest, education expenses, health insurance premiums, HSA, DCSA, etc. So you're looking at closing roughly half of those to offset the cost of that 20% rate reduction. All they're asked to explain is which loopholes they will close or reduce and how. They won't say because people in the middle will realize that under such plan, they will pay higher taxes despite the lower rates. They admit this in different terms - broadening of the tax base - hoping that people won't notice. But if you reform the tax code with the goal of broadening the tax base while keeping it revenue neutral, it follows that people in the middle and lower income groups who may either not pay federal income taxes today or only marginally do so will pay more. And if they pay more, then people on the upper end must pay less in order to keep it revenue neutral.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's not the math that Ryan is asked to explain. They are proposing a 20% rate cut across the board. That is going to cost approximately $5TN over a decade. They are proposing to close loopholes to make it revenue neutral. Now, there are roughly $1TN in loopholes in the tax code. Deductions for charitable donations, mortgage interest, student loan interest, education expenses, health insurance premiums, HSA, DCSA, etc. So you're looking at closing roughly half of those to offset the cost of that 20% rate reduction. All they're asked to explain is which loopholes they will close or reduce and how. They won't say because people in the middle will realize that under such plan, they will pay higher taxes despite the lower rates. They admit this in different terms - broadening of the tax base - hoping that people won't notice. But if you reform the tax code with the goal of broadening the tax base while keeping it revenue neutral, it follows that people in the middle and lower income groups who may either not pay federal income taxes today or only marginally do so will pay more. And if they pay more, then people on the upper end must pay less in order to keep it revenue neutral.

Even revenue neutral is a false-hood in itself.

Government receipts are determined by the overall health of the economy. The economy could crash again tomorrow and revenue would shrink greatly. Hell the economy could pick up a lot of steam and the receipts could grow exponentially. It just depends on what's going on in the country at that time.

Anyone who claims that theyc an "balance" a budget. Anyone who claims that they can make something 'neutral' when it comes to the economy is full of #######.

You can raise and lower taxes all day long, but if the jobs aren't there that produce the revenue for the government, then you're stuck staring at percentages that you have nothing to generate income from.

[JohnR! 5,495]

So it's a month before the election. When is the right time to "go through all the math"?

Based on the track record of the GOP, you can bet the answer to your question is 'never'. They can't produce that which they do not have.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Gegel

[mawilson 2,133]

So it's a month before the election. When is the right time to "go through all the math"?

Never. A 20% tax across the board while remaining revenue neutral means something's gotta give. Things like the mortgage interest deduction or charitable contributions. Not something that would get him elected.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Even revenue neutral is a false-hood in itself.

The long and short of it is that if you tax income at lower rates, it means that you need to tax more income in order to remain revenue neutral. If I tax $1,000.00 at 35% today and I want to take that 35% rate down 20% (to 28%) in a revenue neutral manner, then I'll have to tax $1,250.00 tomorrow at 28% to have the same $350.00 worth of revenue.

There are trillions of dollars of income that are not subject to income taxes today. Romney and Ryan want to tax some of that income in order to lower the tax rates without blowing a fresh $5TN whole into the budget. The question is what that income is that is not subject to income tax today but would be subject to income tax tomorrow. That's the question they don't want to answer because the answer would be last nail in the coffin of their campaign.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wasn't this already posted? Somebody needs to get some new material.

[mawilson 2,133]

That is going to cost approximately $5TN over a decade.

Obama kept repeating this number last night. $5 trillion, $5 trillion, $5 trillion.

Romney called him on it - there is no $5 trillion cut according to him.