Yes in fact it is that no one will say.
PolitiFact | Obama says Republicans in Congress won't name one tax exemption they want to repeal
now this is funny right here, and precisely why politifact has the reputation it does (not a compliment). from their
own citation:
Wallace: "All right. I understand, this is not your committee, it's the Ways and Means Committee. Can you tell me any (tax exemptions) that you're willing to say, do away with it?"
Ryan: "What I would say on doing away with it, is who would we do away with it for. And what we're saying is the people who disproportionately use those, it's the top two tax rate payers use almost of those tax expenditures. We would limit these things to those higher income earners."
Wallace: "Even things like the deduction for health insurance and pensions and home mortgage?"
Ryan: "Yes, right. Instead of giving these write-offs to the people in the top tax bracket, take those tax shelters away.
Due to the way the nominal rate change is designed, it is almost impossible that lower and middle class people, some of them, maybe lots of them, will end up paying more
some individuals probably will, just as some wealthy individuals probably will end up paying less. some poor and middle class individuals will end up paying less, just as some wealthy individuals will end up paying more. is your argument a complaint that it is impossible to craft an individual tax policy for each American household?
while many if not most wealthy people will pay less. In point of fact, it is designed that way.
FactCheck.org : Does House Budget Plan Cut Taxes or Not?
:doh yes. when you count only nominal decreases without counting offsetting credit deductions, you get a score of decreased effective rates. in other news, when you only count the games in which the person playing the red checkers wins, the person playing black checkers always loses.
Wait, so now Ryan's plan raises revenue?
no - that he was raising taxes on people was
your claim. my point was simply that if you want to increase
revenue, then currently our relatively undertaxed cohort is not our upper, but rather our middle income earners.
Feel Free To Check Them.
citing from their tax section:
...Tax reform should lower tax rates, reduce the deficit, simplify the tax code, reduce the tax gap, and make America the best place to start a business and create jobs. Rather than tinker around the edges of the existing tax code, the Commission proposes fundamental and comprehensive tax reform that achieves these basic goals:
Lower rates, broaden the base, and cut spending in the tax code. The current tax code is riddled with $1.1 trillion of tax expenditures: backdoor spending hidden in the tax code. Tax reform must reduce the size and number of these tax expenditures and lower marginal tax rates for individuals and corporations – thereby simplifying the code, improving fairness, reducing the tax gap, and spurring economic growth. Simplifying the code will dramatically reduce the cost and burden of tax preparation and compliance for individuals and corporations.
Reduce the deficit. To escape our nation’s crushing debt and deficit problem, we must have shared sacrifice – and that means a portion of the savings from cutting tax expenditures must be dedicated to deficit reduction. At the same time, revenue cannot constantly increase as a share of the economy. Deficit reduction from tax reform will be companied by deficit reduction from spending cuts—which will come first. Under our plan, revenue reaches 21 percent of GDP by 2022 and is then capped at that level.
Maintain or increase progressivity of the tax code. Though reducing the deficit will require shared sacrifice, those of us who are best off will need to contribute the most. Tax reform must continue to protect those who are most vulnerable, and eliminate tax loopholes favoring those who need help least....
they made three basic rate recommendations:
(eliminate all deductions): 8%, 14%, 23%
(Child Tax Credit and EITC): 9%, 15%, 24%
(Child Credit, EITC, Mortgage Interest, Employer-Provided Health Insurance, Charitable Giving, Retirement Savings): 12%, 22%, 28%
Which, they figured, would increase revenue by over a Trillion dollars over a decade. Not bad in a days work. Not too terribly hard for me to conceive, given that, a number of ways that you could drop to 10 and 15% while
not producing an additional revenue of $1 Trillion, but rather keeping it revenue neutral by cutting out deductions and credits. Probably Ryan's suggestion of "no deductions or credits for those over $250K a year" alone would be just about if not sufficient.