[OrangeHoof]

I support raising taxes if coupled with hell freezing over.

[b4its2late]

Stupid move, but I expected no less.

[OldNewYork]

Oh, Cantor, we hardly knew ye.

[SeaHawkFan]

Wouldn’t read too much into this comment, yet!!!!

Depends on what he means by “loop hole”. If it means something similar to eliminating ethanol, wind, and solar energy subsidies; I’m all for it.

[muleskinner]

As usual, certain FReepers don't read further than the very misleading headline. Cantor says nothing about tax hikes, and I doubt the rest of the Republicans would go along with any hikes.

Yahoo via AP editor is a disturber.

[FlipWilson]

I know it is fashionable around here to spout the knee jerk “RINO” and “screw the Republicans it is time for a third party” comments but for a moment can we focus on what Cantor ACTUALLY said:

“If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes,” Cantor said at a news conference. “Any type of discussion should be coupled WITH OFFSETTING TAX CUTS SOMEHWERE ELSE.”

My Translation: “Sure dems, we will give you some face saving loophole closures so you can claim victory but it will cost you meaningful tax cuts that actually help business.”

The funny thing about our tax code, ok not so funny, is that it is full of “loopholes” that were nothing more than special interest pork in disguise. If they want to close those in the name of saving face, fine. If we can get actual stimulating tax cuts in return, let’s get them.

[cranked]

Ball-less and spine-less...not a one of all the politicians in D.C. have them..... =.=

[Buckeye McFrog]

Republican Party - a defunct American political party which voted itself out of existence in 2011.

[newzjunkey]

Since so many are running around ignorantly calling for scalps, let me boil this down.

Cantor is saying nothing that Cornyn didn't say the other day.

They'll talk about closing loopholes in the tax code that Obama wants to close (i.e. corporate jets which stimulus did) BUT do it in a "revenue neutral" fashion meaning there would be tax cuts elsewhere. Those tax cuts would be in places to incentivize capitol investment and job creation.

Republican emphasis is on budget cuts.

This isn't about Obama's $200K "billionaires."

[tanknetter]

(Cantor stated:) "Any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else."

Ok, this caveat does stir something in me. IIRC, something like 50% of the US population (of taxpaying age) don't pay Federal taxes on income that they earn.

That really does bother me, especially since its largely based on income/affluence and represents the worst "soak the rich" (which really means soak the middle class) type of "progressive" tax structure.

In the rest of the cases, where its the affluent who aren't paying income taxes, the "progressive" tax code allows them to shelter their income from taxes through the use of family trusts and the like. IIRC the Kennedys and Rockefellers don't pay anywhere NEAR the taxes they otherwise should because they are rich enough to afford to establish and maintain such trusts.

I think that what the tax code is really missing is tax equability. Not sure whether I favor a flat tax or not (the idea intrigues me somewhat), but I do know that there are a LOT of people on either end of the income scale from me (upper middle class) who SHOULD be paying as fair a share as I am.