Posted on 07/06/2011 6:25:22 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones) - U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) said that Republicans are open to between $150 billion to $200 billion in increased federal revenues as part of an agreement to cut federal deficits in a bid to smooth the passage of a debt ceiling increase.
But Kyl said these figures didn't include closing any of the business tax deductions that Democrats have been pushing for, saying instead the total was reached by increasing fees charged to entities regulated by the federal government or sales of federal-owned property.
"I have characterized those as things like fee increases, revenue from sales and the like, but we are not talking taxes," Kyl said, speaking to Dow Jones Newswires.
(Excerpt) Read more at nasdaq.com ...
Any agreement in the part of Republicans to increase taxes is a deal breaker for me when it comes time to pull the lever in 2012. The GOP had better be prepared for a massive group of voters jumping ship.
I do not like the thought of them caving on this issue. I hope they don’t but will not be surprised.
I am also a realist and look at who is running. I will listen closely and look at the records where available.
HOWEVER IN NO CASE WILL I STAY AT HOME OR VOTE DEMOCRATIC !!!
I want conservative people but know that there is no liberal that remotely comes close to being conservative or willing to really stand up.
What say you ???
You have the right attitude, cut now and cut deep or pack your bags.. No new taxes. We are all taxed out. Cut entitlements, cut subsidies, cut spending on staff, cut til it hurts, see where we stand and then see if we need fees or taxes after the dust settles. Raise a fee or a tax now and start looking for full time employment in your home district...
The title is misleading..
Lets remember Kyl tried to pass the last amnesty. With McCain and Flake. He jumped the shark some time ago.
In California the definition goes something like this:
A tax (new or increased): Something that has to be approved by voters
A fee (new or increased): Any tax you can sneak through the legislature by calling it a “fee.”
I agree there *should* be a difference (as you point out), but the terms are so misused they no longer follow the original intent. JMHO
Kyl is another product of that awful specimen called the Republican primary voter of AZ. He is retiring in January 2013 and wants to leave his mark.
I just got an email saying Kyl did agree to $200 billion; of our reports must be outdated.
Where did you get the email from??
“Sales of federally owned property” Sounds good, start with GM and half of Utah. I think this is a good move on our part. 150 billion without raising taxes, match it with a couple hundred billion in spending cuts.
Only if you consider “income taxes” — they go into a general fund and are then spent for the benefit of all. Although 50% of the population pays nothing in income taxes.
FICA taxes are not called “fees” even though they promise future benefits will be received directly by the person that paid them.
Liquor, fuel and other excise taxes are not called “fees” even though they are only paid by the user that purchased the item. The “service received” presumably being the cost of regulating that industry ?
Fees go into a slush fund with tax revenue and then is doled out to projects without regard to where the money came from. I agree that “fees” should be compartmentalized so that money goes nowhere except to provide the services related to the fee, but it doesn’t work that way at any level of government as far as I know. Governments ignore free market concepts in setting prices for services.
Throw out the corporate income tax and all deductions and credits from the individual income tax, and set the individual income tax rate at 10%. Alternatively, you could eliminate ALL income taxes and set a 10% Sales Tax instead.
You’d get an extra $200B the first year and more in successive years as the economy took off like a rocket. You’d also cut $400B from spending via drops in unemployment benefits, foodstamps and Medicaid eligibility.
Articles like this drive me nuts. The Titanic is sinking and these people are rearranging the deck chairs.
You people do realize that without a deal the debt celing will be declared unconstitutional and we will have lost everyhing, it will be tied up in the court for years because lower courts won’t have the guts to tempt Obama with defaulting on the debt. Yes the treasury can choose what bills to pay and they can refuse interest on the debt in preference to food stamps.
Yeah, sell ANWR to China then buy the oil they drill there from them.
“they can refuse interest on the debt in preference to food stamps.”
Really? What’s the precedent? I’d think that’s against the 14th Amendment.
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.