Paul Ryan's Budget Deficit Reduction Plan

[The Evil Genius]

Thanks for the clarification...I didn't realize that 8% came out of every pay check above and beyond whatever FERS or 401K-type plan you contribute to. Very interesting and something that is NOT common knowledge. How does health insurance work? Is that a deduction from your payroll as well? I never get a straight answer about that (from others) for some reason.

It differs amongst public governments, but for me, the state pays a negotiated amount each month towards dental, vision, and health care. The employees pay the difference between what the state pays and what the insurance companies charge the state.

I have options on which companies to choose. Right now, for example, I have Delta Dental and Kaiser Permanente and only cover myself (the wife is covered by her work).

I pay a little over $125 a month pre tax deduction (which isn't much) but I did choose the cheaper options. I do have higher co-pays and drug costs than other plans that cost more. Considering that I hardly ever use my health insurance, I'm sure I am a bargain for Kaiser.

[TheLongshot]

Not true the Contractoring company pays for most of the cost to have a clearance processed. One of the reasons a company won't hire a person without a clearance is because they don't want to pay $ 15,000 to $20,000 to have it processed and adjudicated. Yes the process is done that way but the company still has to pay.

As someone who works for a contractor, I think that's bull. Fact is, if it was true, we'd be signing agreements to reimburse the contractor for the cost of going through the clearance process if we left within a year of getting it. (Just like we do when we get training paid by the employer.)

No, it is the sponsoring agency that pays for the clearance process, since they are the ones who are requesting the skillset. The real reason why it is difficult to get in without a clearance is because the the process takes at least 6 months (or longer with some agencies) and for many it is likely that much of this time will be unbillable. There is also no guarantee that when the employee in question gets his clearance that he will stay. Contractors do take on a lot of risk when they hire a guy they want to put through the clearance process. I was fortunate, since I was hired by a company that did a lot of work in the unclass area.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

As someone who works for a contractor, I think that's bull. Fact is, if it was true, we'd be signing agreements to reimburse the contractor for the cost of going through the clearance process if we left within a year of getting it. (Just like we do when we get training paid by the employer.)

No, it is the sponsoring agency that pays for the clearance process, since they are the ones who are requesting the skillset. The real reason why it is difficult to get in without a clearance is because the the process takes at least 6 months (or longer with some agencies) and for many it is likely that much of this time will be unbillable. There is also no guarantee that when the employee in question gets his clearance that he will stay. Contractors do take on a lot of risk when they hire a guy they want to put through the clearance process. I was fortunate, since I was hired by a company that did a lot of work in the unclass area.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/security2_4.htm

"The government pays the cost of clearances for military personnel and civilian government employees. The law requires that contractors pay most of the costs of obtaining clearances for their employees. That's why contractors quite often advertise to try and find employees who already hold a valid clearance. It saves them several thousands of dollars. Additionally, it saves them time, as they don't have to wait for months for the new employee to obtain a clearance, and begin to do the job they were hired for."

So yes it is required by law that the contractoring company pays for the clearance.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think Ryan's Corporate Tax plan is a good one. We are among the highest Corporate Taxed Economies in the world yet we see some of the lowest economic growth. Ryan's idea seems to be to cut Corporate taxes from 35% to 25% and cut out tax loop holes.

If you hate what happened with G.E. and has been happening with large corporations, then it would seem as if you would be in favor of this plan. To me, it makes sense.

[TheLongshot]

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/security2_4.htm

"The government pays the cost of clearances for military personnel and civilian government employees. The law requires that contractors pay most of the costs of obtaining clearances for their employees. That's why contractors quite often advertise to try and find employees who already hold a valid clearance. It saves them several thousands of dollars. Additionally, it saves them time, as they don't have to wait for months for the new employee to obtain a clearance, and begin to do the job they were hired for."

So yes it is required by law that the contractoring company pays for the clearance.

Yes, but the fact that there are few strings attached with putting someone through the process tells me that they are getting compensated for that, probably through the contracts they are signed. The Government isn't paying for it directly, but I'm pretty sure they are paying for it indirectly.

[The Evil Genius]

Is home ownership not a good idea anymore?

Ryan's plan includes eliminating mortgage interest deductions from income tax. Seems that would make it less possible for people to afford home ownership, if they had to pay more out of pocket taxes on their income.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Yes, but the fact that there are few strings attached with putting someone through the process tells me that they are getting compensated for that, probably through the contracts they are signed. The Government isn't paying for it directly, but I'm pretty sure they are paying for it indirectly.

I think that the government will pay a fraction for it but not all of it. Now a days you can't really find a contracting company that is willing to hire you without a clearance anyways.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yes, but the fact that there are few strings attached with putting someone through the process tells me that they are getting compensated for that, probably through the contracts they are signed. The Government isn't paying for it directly, but I'm pretty sure they are paying for it indirectly.

Right...someone with a clearance is billing more per hour than someone without one.

---------- Post added April-6th-2011 at 12:07 PM ----------

I think that the government will a fraction for it but not all of it. Now a days you can't really find a contracting company that is willing to hire you without a clearance anyways.

Really?

There is so much government work that doesn't require a clearance that I'm not sure I know where you're coming up with that theory?

[Bliz]

I know it wouldn't make much of a difference to the bottom line, but it would sure be nice to see some shared sacrifice coming from our congressmen/women. Freeze your own pay for 5 years and do away with or substantially reduce some of the lifetime benefits as a gesture of good faith. And for crap's sake, sack up and make sure you don't get paid during the shutdown. The House R's political maneuvering on that point is disgraceful.

I think Ryan's Corporate Tax plan is a good one. We are among the highest Corporate Taxed Economies in the world yet we see some of the lowest economic growth. Ryan's idea seems to be to cut Corporate taxes from 35% to 25% and cut out tax loop holes.

If you hate what happened with G.E. and has been happening with large corporations, then it would seem as if you would be in favor of this plan. To me, it makes sense.

Again, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm extremely skeptical that this plan would actually do what it purports to do, and increase the actual tax expenditures of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the country by millions of dollars per year.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Right...someone with a clearance is billing more per hour than someone without one.

---------- Post added April-6th-2011 at 12:07 PM ----------

Really?

There is so much government work that doesn't require a clearance that I'm not sure I know where you're coming up with that theory?

Sorry I was talking about Contract Companies hiring positions that require clearances.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I know it wouldn't make much of a difference to the bottom line, but it would sure be nice to see some shared sacrifice coming from our congressmen/women. Freeze your own pay for 5 years and do away with or substantially reduce some of the lifetime benefits as a gesture of good faith. And for crap's sake, sack up and make sure you don't get paid during the shutdown. The House R's political maneuvering on that point is disgraceful.

I agree with this, it would be nice to see a contribution from all quarters but I'm not sure what you are referring to on the House R's political maneuvering and what exactly is discraceful?

Again, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm extremely skeptical that this plan would actually do what it purports to do, and increase the actual tax expenditures of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the country by millions of dollars per year.

Well, I can cerainly understand your skepticism here. After the last few years, I share a certain level of skepticism. However, we know that what we have had these past few years is not working. At some point, we have to look at options. What are the options here?

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Right...someone with a clearance is billing more per hour than someone without one.

A majority of Contracting companies aren't willing to take a risk on someone who doesn't have an initial clearance. It’s a lot of time and effort put in to get a clearance. You could wait up to 6 months to get approved for a clearance and then sometimes it could get denied. Now if a company decides to hire you without a clearance your employment would be contingent on being granted an interim clearance then you could work in a cleared space.

[adam@section118]

As someone who works for a contractor, I think that's bull. Fact is, if it was true, we'd be signing agreements to reimburse the contractor for the cost of going through the clearance process if we left within a year of getting it. (Just like we do when we get training paid by the employer.)

No, it is the sponsoring agency that pays for the clearance process, since they are the ones who are requesting the skillset. The real reason why it is difficult to get in without a clearance is because the the process takes at least 6 months (or longer with some agencies) and for many it is likely that much of this time will be unbillable. There is also no guarantee that when the employee in question gets his clearance that he will stay. Contractors do take on a lot of risk when they hire a guy they want to put through the clearance process. I was fortunate, since I was hired by a company that did a lot of work in the unclass area.

One of my old companies charged us if anyone obtained a clearance and left before they had hit 12 months with the company, FWIW.

[Stadium-Armory]

I'm not educated enough about his plan to know whether or not to support it, but I do respect the fact that someone is putting something out there that addresses the deficit problem.

[Destino]

This plan should be called the "bend over and take it middle class!" plan. The elimination of the mortgage interest reduction alone would be a savage blow. The fact that he ****s over the middle class and charities while advocating for a massive tax cut at the top is criminal. Obama hasn't done it for me and I've sensed myself moving to the right as moderate conservatives have started making a lot more sense to me lately.

Then I saw this plan.

Democratic party, where do I sign to renew!

[DieselPwr44]

This plan should be called the "bend over and take it middle class!" plan. The elimination of the mortgage interest reduction alone would be a savage blow. The fact that he ****s over the middle class and charities while advocating for a massive tax cut at the top is criminal. Obama hasn't done it for me and I've sensed myself moving to the right as moderate conservatives have started making a lot more sense to me lately.

Then I saw this plan.

Democratic party, where do I sign to renew!

So, you advocate doing nothing? At present time, that seems to be the Dem plan regarding debt reduction. Status Quo and let's spend some more!

Where's all the "wouldn't $5/gallon gas be wonderful" crowd at?

Y'all ain't losin faith are ya?

[The Evil Genius]

Let's make no mistake about it - Ryan's plan, predictably, panders to the top 1-2% on the income ladder.

They don't need Medicare. They will save on Medicaid. And the tax cut is gravy.

[Bliz]

I agree with this, it would be nice to see a contribution from all quarters but I'm not sure what you are referring to on the House R's political maneuvering and what exactly is discraceful?

The Senate voted unanimously on a stand-alone bill a month ago that said the Congress and President would not be paid in the event of a shutdown. Boehner has refused, so far, to take up the measure and allow a vote. The closest they came to addressing in the House was to include it in a temporary budget bill that Senate Dems had already rejected and which included all of the unrelated riders (i.e., a political effort to flip the tables and say "Senate Dems voted to keep paying themselves!") but so far they have not allowed a vote on the standalone bill.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

This plan should be called the "bend over and take it middle class!" plan. The elimination of the mortgage interest reduction alone would be a savage blow. The fact that he ****s over the middle class and charities while advocating for a massive tax cut at the top is criminal. Obama hasn't done it for me and I've sensed myself moving to the right as moderate conservatives have started making a lot more sense to me lately.

Then I saw this plan.

Democratic party, where do I sign to renew!

Where in the bill does it say that they would elimate the mortgage interest rededuction? I was reading through the bill under the tax section and couldn't find it.

[Bliz]

This plan should be called the "bend over and take it middle class!" plan. The elimination of the mortgage interest reduction alone would be a savage blow. The fact that he ****s over the middle class and charities while advocating for a massive tax cut at the top is criminal. Obama hasn't done it for me and I've sensed myself moving to the right as moderate conservatives have started making a lot more sense to me lately.

Then I saw this plan.

Democratic party, where do I sign to renew!

I would assume that everyone gets a massive tax cut. They're not going to reduce the top rate from 35% to 25% and leave everything else where it is, I think. All other rates would go down as well, with 25% being the new top. Would that reduction more than offset the deductions most people get for mortgage interest and charitable donations? I really don't know.

[Stadium-Armory]

Removing the mortgage interest credit without making it up elsewhere would do serious damage to my finances. I'm willing to pay more to help us out of debt, but in the order of hundreds or maybe a thousand dollars more a year. I'm afraid that something like this might increase my taxes in the order of thousands, but I'll have to investigate further before knowing for sure.

[The Evil Genius]

Where in the bill does it say that they would elimate the mortgage interest rededuction? I was reading through the bill under the tax section and couldn't find it.

Here is the language - the analysis so far is that he is pointing towards donations to charities and mortgage interest deductions in this language.

Pg 53 at this link --> http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

The new, simplified code outlined in this budget will continue to raise sufficient revenue to fund the government by broadening the tax base, eliminating or limiting as necessary existing tax deductions, exclusions, and other special provisions. These carve-outs have distorted economic activity and necessitated high tax rates that hurt growth. Getting rid of these tax expenditures will make the tax code simpler, fairer and more conducive to economic growth and job creation.

[Madison Redskin]

I'm not educated enough about his plan to know whether or not to support it, but I do respect the fact that someone is putting something out there that addresses the deficit problem.

I'm in the same boat. I haven't read the bill, or any portions of it, so I will reserve judgment. However, as you pointed out, the Dems haven't offered a proposal that takes a big bite out of the deficit. My guess is that the Dems are afraid to propose what they think is necessary (and may in fact be necessary), e.g., tax hikes. Those are always big winners, particularly during tough economic times.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Here is the language - the analysis so far is that he is pointing towards donations to charities and mortgage interest deductions in this language.

Pg 53 at this link --> http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

Thanks for pointing that out. I kept reading it and reading and was like where is it I know it is in here somewhere. So possibly eliminating the mortgage interest and chartiable donations would then. Didn't Ryan go off the recomendations from the Debit commisson for this purposed tax code?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Here is the language - the analysis so far is that he is pointing towards donations to charities and mortgage interest deductions in this language.

Pg 53 at this link --> http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

To me, that would make sense. I mean, as I posted earlier, if the goal is to eliminate loop holes and get everybody to pay taxes, then it would make sense to do this. I am not certain what everybody gets back on mortgage interest but lets just assume you make 100K a year. Moving from .35 to 25 would be a 10K reduction in taxes paid. Would that be more then what you get now for mortgage interest returns?

---------- Post added April-6th-2011 at 11:09 AM ----------

Thanks for pointing that out.So possibly eliminating this tax deduction then. Didn't Ryan go off the recomendations from the Debit commisson for this purposed tax code?

The Debt Commission actually borrowed a lot of this from Ryan but it doesn't really matte who came up with it first. I think that the salient point here is that both the debt commission and Ryan's plan have come to the same conclusion.