Comments on: Paul Ryan and the rich man’s burden

By: fernando80

fernando80 — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:19:14 +0000

It’s the same discussion in the UK: ‘benefit cheats’ vs. ‘tax avoiders’. I personally think that the small minority of rich tax avoiders and corporations and their offshore trusts and foundations, where trillions are kept far away from the taxman(see recent study of offshore finance by the tax justice network) are far more damaging for the country’s finances than health insurance and pensions for the poor and disabled. The money spent on the poor are peanuts compared to the trillions hidden on the tax heavens. Clamp down on the tax heavens! Why do Romney and Ryan do not talk about the problem of offshore money?

By: SayHey

SayHey — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:10:32 +0000

The Ryan quote is accurate. What the author of this article, and many commenters, are urging is what modern progressivism has become – a kind of Organized Crime theory of government where the government is a variation of a protection racket – pay up so you will not be kidnapped. This is hardly what the Founders envisioned. Moreover, the claim that not enough is being done for the poor is a plain departure from reality. To put it in perspective, the Mars mission tab this year is about $500 million. The state of New York alone spends twice that amount on Medicaid – in a week.

By: Missinginaction

Missinginaction — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:11:23 +0000

You’ve hit two home runs here. The first regards who pays. Mr. Ryan’s ideas are nothing new. As a teenager in the 70′s I complained to my father about taxes. His response: “Be glad you can pay them. The haves always pay for the have-nots”. The second concerns living in a civil society. There truly is a thin blue line that protects the middle/upper classes. Look at the crime rates for inner cities vs. suburbs. If you’re wealthy you probably think bad things cannot happen to you, after all they are not in your experience, yet….

Thinking that the poor are lazy is naive. Surely there is some of that but in my experience many of us lack opportunity and lack the resources to gain life experiences that expand horizons. There is a lot of mental illness, drug abuse and child abuse. If you’re a kid growing up in an abusive household you’re busy trying to survive and get out of there. Homework and college applications are probably not high on your priority list.

I’m old enough to remember the riots of the sixties. A lot of that was based on race but poverty played a large part as well. Paul Ryan was born in 1970 so those days are not in his personal experience. Mr. Romney should know better.

There are many more guns on the street today than in the sixties. I hope our politics don’t take us back to that place.

Find someone to speak with who’s involved with Child protective Services or Family Court. Educate yourself and I believe that you will see some flaws in Mr. Ryan’s agenda.

By: TheWiseOne

TheWiseOne — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:12:57 +0000

Great article Paul – you raise some interesting points about how the election process has changed over the years to include not just non-property owners, but those who may not be white males. Wouldn’t it be interesting if you could “sit out” on taxes if your candidate doesn’t get elected? So if the person that you voted for didn’t get elected, you simply get a “pass” on taxes for those 4 years. Of course if you don’t pay any taxes during that period, you also get no benefits either. Of course we couldn’t pull back on the military protection or the air traffic controller types of benefits, but if you want unemployment, food stamps, FEMA assistance, or any type government subsidy, you’ll just have to wait until your candidate gets into office. That could really make life interesting, don’t you think

Ok back to reality…. what does it matter what the public wants anyway – it’s really what the electorates want? Otherwise, there would have been a couple of different pictures of presidents hanging on the wall.

By: TheWiseOne

TheWiseOne — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:12:37 +0000

Great article Michael – you raise some interesting points about how the election process has changed over the years to include not just non-property owners, but those who may not be white males. Wouldn’t it be interesting if you could “sit out” on taxes if your candidate doesn’t get elected? So if the person that you voted for didn’t get elected, you simply get a “pass” on taxes for those 4 years. Of course if you don’t pay any taxes during that period, you also get no benefits either. Of course we couldn’t pull back on the military protection or the air traffic controller types of benefits, but if you want unemployment, food stamps, FEMA assistance, or any type government subsidy, you’ll just have to wait until your candidate gets into office. That could really make life interesting, don’t you think

By: Gordon2352

Gordon2352 — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 20:18:14 +0000

What neither you, nor Mr. Ryan, mentions is that, while he is from quite a wealthy family, he apparently had no problem whatsoever accepting social security death benefits after the death of his father, which he used to pay for college.

Clearly, he didn’t need the death benefits, but had no problem using it, depending upon the government instead of himself, his family, their community, and their faith as their main source of support, which is what he is urging others to do.

Mr. Ryan, if you examine his background and character closely, is more of a believer in “do as I say, not as I do”.

It seems he didn’t have any problem taking money from the government when it was offered then, yet objects that anyone be offered the same opportunity.

Mr. Ryan has spent nearly his entire “working career” in government service, with all the benefits and perks that allows, but doesn’t count this as total dependency upon the government.

—————————-

From Wikipedia:

Ryan was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, the youngest of four children of Elizabeth A. and Paul Murray Ryan, a lawyer.[6][7][8]

His great-grandfather, Patrick William Ryan (1858–1917), founded the Ryan Incorporated Central construction business in 1884.[11][12][13]

While growing up, Ryan and his family often went on hiking and skiing trips in the Colorado Rocky Mountains.[7][14]

When Ryan was 16, his father died of a heart attack. [14]

His father’s death provided Ryan with Social Security benefits until his 18th birthday, which he saved to pay for his education at Miami University of Ohio.[15][16]

——————————

Maybe Mr. Ryan should be required to return the social security money he used to pay for college, instead of living expenses as most others would be forced to do in his circumstances.

Think of it as a sort of “student loan” from the government, which Mr. Ryan has never bothered to pay back.

By: Beobachter

Beobachter — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:38:00 +0000

Is’nt the 60 percent’s freeride a consequence of capatalist extremism; The globalized laissez faire supply side economy?

The race to the bottom, …may the most efficient (the cheapest) supplier win over the backs of the middle (and “lower”) classes.

By: Sanity-Monger

Sanity-Monger — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:26:19 +0000

I’m reminded of a book review I heard recently (unfortunately, I no longer recall the book) wherein the author includes an analysis of actor Sir Michael Caine’s anti-tax stance and attempts to roughly quantify how much exactly in government benefits Sir Michael has accumulated over the years. I’m sure Caine thinks that he earned his money by acting in films, but as it turns out, there’s a bit more to it than that. What if there were no copyright protection, a government benefit that his taxes provide, on the films he made? It turns out that there is no copyright protection on porn films, so the book author suggested that without copyright protection, Sir Michael’s income from acting might be more similar to that of a porn film star than what he in fact brings in. The copyright protection benefit of course means an awful lot more to Sir Michael than to most of us (its absence might indeed drastically reduce the cost of entertainment for most of us), but we all pay for it.

By: anarcurt

anarcurt — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:58:36 +0000

Where does this idea that government services hurt entrepreneurship come from? The burden of college loans and insane insurance premiums greatly deter small business ownership. How is someone who has to pay $800 a month on their college loans and as much for insurance supposed to have any money to invest in building a business? I would imagine that universal healthcare and free (or near free) education would lead to a small business boom.

By: zotdoc

zotdoc — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:55:07 +0000

Any system of “progressive taxation” that lets 1/2 or more of us pay no income tax at all, while reaping government benefits and voting for more benefits for ourselves, will eventually end when there is no more money left, and that is exactly what is happening to our country right now. This and other issues need to have a serious debate and these ad hominem attacks are not helpful. Instead of making inferences about what you think Ryans opinion of working people is, you maybe should ask him. Personally, I’m for a flat tax with no loopholes so that every one of us will have a reason not to let our politicians spend ever more of our money to get themselves re-elected.