Roadmap for America's Future Act
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 09:41:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Roadmap for America's Future Act
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: How would you vote on this bill, if you were a legislator?
#1
Democrat: Aye
 
#2
Democrat: Nay
 
#3
Democrat: Abstain
 
#4
Republican: Aye
 
#5
Republican: Nay
 
#6
Republican: Abstain
 
#7
independent/third party: Aye
 
#8
independent/third party: Nay
 
#9
independent/third party: Abstain
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 16

Author Topic: Roadmap for America's Future Act  (Read 4845 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,739
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 17, 2009, 02:43:30 PM »
« edited: July 17, 2009, 02:45:43 PM by Fading Frodo »

Introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R -WI), its objectives include ensuring the permanent solvency of our entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, paying down the national debt, and reforming the tax code to make it more conducive for investors, and encourage saving.  Here are its proposals, straight from its website, as well as a link to the actual legislation:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Major Plan Components.

Health Care.

% Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families – to
purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if they move or change jobs.

% Establishes transparency in health care price and quality data, so this critical information
is readily available before someone needs health services.

% Modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk
pools, giving States maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific
needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of
options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.
Medicare. Transitions the program to allow beneficiaries to choose the most affordable coverage to suit their needs.

% Preserves the existing Medicare program for those 55 or older.

% For those currently under 55 – as they become Medicare-eligible – creates a Medicare
payment of up to $9,500. This payment is adjusted for inflation and based on income,
with low-income individuals receiving greater support. It is also risk-adjusted, so those
with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.

% Establishes and fully funds medical savings accounts [MSAs] for low-income
beneficiaries, while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of income, to set up
tax-free MSAs.

% Makes Medicare permanently solvent, based on consultation with the Office of the
Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.


Social Security.

% Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.

% Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social
Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan
available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets
to their heirs, and a guarantee that total benefits from the personal accounts will not be
less than they would have been under the current system.

% Combined with a more realistic measure of growth in Social Security’s initial benefits
and an eventual modernization of the retirement age, makes the program permanently
solvent, according to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration [SSA].


Tax Reform.

% Provides individual income tax payers a choice of how to pay their taxes – through
existing law, or through a highly simplified code that fits on a postcard with just two rates
and virtually no special tax deductions, credits, or exclusions (except the health care tax
credit).

% Simplified tax rates are 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for
single filers; and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. Also includes a generous
standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).

% Eliminates the alternative minimum tax [AMT].

% Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also
eliminates the death tax.

% Replaces the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized
world – with a border-adjustable business consumption tax of 8.5%. This new rate is
roughly half that of the rest of the industrialized world.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2009, 03:08:59 PM »

I like a lot of it, but I'm pretty strongly against the tax proposals.

NAY unless real progressive taxation is maintained, I guess.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,739
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2009, 03:13:54 PM »
« Edited: July 17, 2009, 03:15:58 PM by Fading Frodo »

I like a lot of it, but I'm pretty strongly against the tax proposals.

NAY unless real progressive taxation is maintained, I guess.

He is basically giving us two options -to pay through our existing progressive tax code, or through his two-tiered proposal that (I think) is supposed to coexist alongside it. 
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2009, 03:17:19 PM »

I like a lot of it, but I'm pretty strongly against the tax proposals.

NAY unless real progressive taxation is maintained, I guess.

He is basically giving us two options -to pay through our existing progressive tax code, or through his two-tiered proposal that (I think) is supposed to coexist alongside it. 

Well unless you get a LOT of deductions....why would somebody making over a certain amount ever choose the progressive taxation?

Seems to me to clearly abolish the present system, even if one has a "choice."
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,027


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2009, 03:47:58 PM »

Wow, this is awful.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2009, 06:17:32 PM »


Of course, Frodo would be the one to post it here.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,739
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2009, 06:26:24 PM »


Yes, let's ignore the polls I set up in the past for the ones you'd probably like better, like the Freedom of Choice Act or the Employee Free Choice Act, and focus on this one as evidence of my supposed apostasy.  Roll Eyes

Climb down off your high horse and get the hell out of my thread -or better yet, not post in any of them at all. 
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2009, 09:43:14 PM »

Ryan is a brilliant genius, I remember when I first heard of this in an article in 2007. I would change section three a tad but by and large especially sections one and two I would definately support and it would lift a burden of over 40 Trillion dollars in unfunded mandates off the Gov't rolls and likely would stave off the ultimate budgetary crisis we will soon be faced with on Medicaid, and Social Security. Finally unlike all the previous and other solutions which served to "kick the can down the road" this makes them permently solvent A much better fix then any other that is out there.

For the third section I would prefer a third category be created for those that Make $250,000 or more and have that be 33%. Plus all three should be index to inflation. As it is, it would give the bulk of the middle class a huge tax cut as those people who are currently higher up the income later are dropped down to the 10% bracket. As it is, it saves us from the AMT which will be permently elimnated. The corporate tax rate I think is a brilliant idea cause it should fluctate based on foriegn rates. Our current system amounts to a Tariff on ourselves putting us at a severe disadvantage competing with other countries.


If the economy does not recover or if we recover and are faced with high inflation, this could well be the economic platform of the new Republican Majority. Especially if the Dems offer the same old solutions on entitelements of basically lowering the Standard of Living for only a partial or temporary solution to the problems. I could see an Eric Cantor, a Mike Pence, or even Ryan himself riding this directly to the Speakership, and someone like Jon Huntsmen maybe riding this to the Presidency in 2016. The Republicans do have alternatives to Obamanomics.

GO PAUL RYAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2009, 12:50:39 AM »

Nay, obviously. The health care stuff isn't that terrible, social security is poop in mouth, and tax ideas are just idiotic.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,270
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2009, 04:31:00 AM »

     The health care part isn't that bad. The social security part could go further. The tax part is a waste of time; either enforce the statute against theft & end mandatory taxation or don't bother.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2009, 04:50:43 AM »

I mean, I don't think this is really the sort of plan that we're even supposed to take seriously.  He knows he can't implement it, and thus is not accountable for feasibility.  This is just an extravagant talking point against the Democratic talking point that the GOP is the "party of no" -- now they can point to all of their great ideas in writing...
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2009, 11:11:02 AM »

Nay.  It's horrendous.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2009, 01:53:33 PM »

More like a bunch of gimmicks than real legislation.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2009, 06:30:26 PM »

1. On Social Security-I don't see why partial privation is so vehemently opposed. You could practically guarrentee a greater return on investment depending how it is written. Due opponents realise that the alternatives, raise taxes and cut benefits are only temporary solutions to the problem and meaning that eventually as the costs swell in the future these alone won't solve the problem.

I mean, I don't think this is really the sort of plan that we're even supposed to take seriously.  He knows he can't implement it, and thus is not accountable for feasibility.  This is just an extravagant talking point against the Democratic talking point that the GOP is the "party of no" -- now they can point to all of their great ideas in writing...

Currently no, but people said the same thing to Jack Kemp in the early 70's. Depending how events play out this could actually become a viable plan. As I said some modifications to the Tax proposal need to made such as keeping the EITC if it is not included in there already, and the Corporate tax rate could be a little higher such as 15%. As for the Health Care proposal, requiring everyone to buy Insurance and then either providing subsidies or a Gov't plan for the poor would be a good addition. In the 70's Kemp ended up modifying his plan significantly to gain more support in Congress. I can see the same thing here if Ryan is as committed as Kemp was.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2009, 03:15:54 PM »

1. On Social Security-I don't see why partial privation is so vehemently opposed.

Privation is what we're afraid of!  ;-)

I know you meant privatization.    And thanks for a well-reasoned, excellent post.  I don't agree but I really benefit from your injections into our debates.  You take solidly conservative positions without rancor or invective.  We could all learn a lot from your example, Yankee.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,708
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2009, 01:26:25 PM »

1. On Social Security-I don't see why partial privation is so vehemently opposed.

Wouldn't we all be doing great if it had been passed in 2005?
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2009, 04:20:49 PM »

I would vote nay.  We need real reform in health care that doesn't just give handouts to the private health care industry.

And we need to recognize that those that are struggling with healthcare bills aren't going to benefit much from tax credits. 

How about rather than providing a tax credit, we just spend the money on providing coverage for the poor?

I also vehemently oppose the tax proposal.  What a load of sh**t.  We need a strongly progressive tax system, though I do agree that interest income should be tax free.  Capital gains should only be tax free to a certain amount.  Capital gains that are reinvested should be tax free or put into a retirement savings account with a very low tax upon retirement.
This would encourage saving for retirement through investment in American business.

This Ryan guy is no genius.  He hasn't proposed one original idea there.. it's just simply a regurgitation of what the Republican party wants.

How does he expect to fund the government with those cuts in income tax?  I suppose he has a magic axe that will magically cut non-defense spending.  Oh wait.. he'll just borrow more from China.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,501
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2009, 04:24:37 PM »

I would vote nay.  We need real reform in health care that doesn't just give handouts to the private health care industry.

And we need to recognize that those that are struggling with healthcare bills aren't going to benefit much from tax credits. 

How about rather than providing a tax credit, we just spend the money on providing coverage for the poor?

I also vehemently oppose the tax proposal.  What a load of sh**t.  We need a strongly progressive tax system, though I do agree that interest income should be tax free.  Capital gains should only be tax free to a certain amount.  Capital gains that are reinvested should be tax free or put into a retirement savings account with a very low tax upon retirement.
This would encourage saving for retirement through investment in American business.

This Ryan guy is no genius.  He hasn't proposed one original idea there.. it's just simply a regurgitation of what the Republican party wants.

How does he expect to fund the government with those cuts in income tax?  I suppose he has a magic axe that will magically cut non-defense spending.  Oh wait.. he'll just borrow more from China.

^^^^^^^^^ this
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.248 seconds with 14 queries.