Posted on 07/06/2011 12:58:35 PM PDT by Zakeet
A top House Republican leader suggested a way to end a stalemate over taxes in the debt-ceiling negotiations, saying Wednesday that Republicans could endorse ending some business tax breaks targeted by Democrats if they also agreed to renew other business-backed tax benefits.
The proposal by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), which was described in a briefing with reporters, represents a new wrinkle in the ongoing budget discussions.
In recent weeks, Democrats have pushed for raising revenue by closing a raft of corporate tax breaks and benefits as part of a potential deficit-reduction deal that would ease the passage of a required increase in the federal borrowing limit. Such proposals include tax benefits currently available to owners of corporate jets, yachts, thoroughbred horses, ethanol fuel producers and the largest oil and gas companies.
Until now, senior Republicans have said those measures could only be addressed in the context of overhauling the entire tax code, which most political analysts don't expect this year. Mr. Cantor said he would be open to including closures of such tax benefits as long as Democrats go along with renewing popular business tax benefits such as the research and development tax credit.
Brad Dayspring, Mr. Cantor's communications director, listed several other examples, including extending a one-year payroll tax credit for employees.
It is unclear whether Democrats would go for Mr. Cantor's proposal, or if they would continue to insist that tax breaks for corporations be ended in exchange for the deep spending reductions Republicans are pushing for in a deficit-reduction deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Problem is the removal of special interest deductions (to wit, localized tax increase) is not balanced by a decrease in overall tax rates.
So you think special interest tax subsidies, like the tax credit for ethonal production, are good?
True conservatives are opposed to using the tax code for social engineering purposes. People like you who oppose the elimination of any special interest deduction aren't conservatives, but idolaters, worshipers of Grover Nordquist.
“Read my lips: no new taxes.”
Violating that is why GWHB was voted out.
Same idea.
You're making the perfect is the enemy of the good.
We shall surrender on the beaches, we shall surrender on the landing grounds, we shall surrender in the fields and in the streets, we shall surrender in the hills; we shall never fight.
If you are going to surrender to Obama, please do it early enough so that you can be run out in the primary.
I have given up on the GOP. I hope Palin goes rouge and mounts a direct all out attack to take the Executive Branch. I see it as the best chance to save the country. I hope she will get up and running after the GOP cave in on the borrowing limit. Who knows a few TP critters may spunk up and join her to form the new party. It should be obvious the GOP is going to nominate ROMNEY.
GHWB lost because he raised tax rates, not because he eliminated incentive-distorting tax deductions.
They will call it something else. But not what it is. TAX HIKES. Any guesses on what they call it?
Cantor is just another corrupt and incompetent politician.
Why is that a problem?
As conservatives we want three things: spending cuts, a reduction in tax rates, and an elimination of special interest loopholes and deductions.
Unfortunately, the political reality is we can't get all three of these things, at least not right away. However, we can get two out of three. Why not take them?
Are you seriously saying that we should turn down two things conservatives have wanted for a long time, just because we can't get the third?
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.
Getting the dems to agree to $3 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for eliminating a few incentive-distorting tax loopholes that conservatives never supported in the first place seems like a pretty good deal to me.
You assume that a purported trade of tax breaks for significant "spending reductions" is good. As a short-term expedient, it would be, but for one small problem:
Democrats LIE.
They will institute the tax increases as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. The proffered spending cuts, however, will NEVER materialize. Why? Because next year is an election year and any proposal to "cut" the budget (Washingtonese for "reducing the originally-planned rate of increase") will be characterized in wall-to-wall Democrat campaign ads as "heartless", cruel", "vicious" , or "merciless": giveaways to the greedy Republican special interests especially those millionaires and billionaires that don't need it.
Compromise is easy, as is demagoguery. Responsibility is hard.
I’ll take “investment for $1,000 Alex”
Eliminating special interest tax deductions, which only benefit a tiny fraction of the population, and seriously distort economic incentives to boot, is something conservatives should support, whatever you want to call it.
Not bad...chuckle.
How about. An Adjustment Package?
Yeah but I want them all gone, not just pick and choose which industry is good and which is evil.
I wouldn’t mind getting rid of that tax credit for Hollywood Film Production. They’re all Democrat Liberals anyway. Why subsidize their propagandistic crapola?
Economic theory says it is objectively good for the long-run as well.
They will institute the tax increases as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.
If they win a majority in the future, they will be able to do that regardless of whether we take this deal or not.
The proffered spending cuts, however, will NEVER materialize.
If you really believe that, then there's no point for you to even try to get spending cuts. Is that really your position?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.