Posted on 11/16/2011 2:15:08 AM PST by markomalley
I’m not against tax cuts! I never said I was.
But the truth is the Democrats have maneuvered the GOP into a position where will have to go on the record as voting for a tax increase.
The Democrats are making it a take or leave it deal.
Maybe they’re trying to call the Democrats’ bluff here.
I’m in favor of revenue neutral tax reform.
But that’s not what the Washington elites want.
Which is why I’m against any deal that swaps tax increases for budget cuts.
G.H.W.B agreed to that in the 1990s. It fell through and he lost his re-election bid.
Hey, we’re trying to “produce” more of them. Look at the records of NOOT, Perry and Willard.
I can not understand why ANY of those candidates are still in the race, except that NOOT and Perry are simply stalking horses to split the “anybody but Willard” votes.
Congress is full of RINOs just like them, as evinced by spending under GWB.
(Just for the record, I do not hate Texas, just taxes! LOL)
The Democrats are pulling the same scam they pulled on the first President Bush.
And the GOP is being set up for a fall - a nasty political fall.
I didn't imply you were for tax rate cuts, I was just asking because some changes, like reducing tax rates, result in overall increases to gross tax receipts. Yet, apparently anything that results in an increase in overall tax receipts is taboo to some people. So until there are specifics proposed, we can only take Boehner at his word. He has said all along, NO TAX RATE INCREASES.
You do that... for me its verify first, then trust. If it was good enough for The Gipper, its good enough for me!
the govt is greedy for more money
to spend
where do you see any honest men talking about using any new revenue to reduce deficits?
I would sooner Buffet and even Immelt spend and invest their own money than give it to obama to fritter and waste on a thousand Solyndras and labor union cronies
(this is NOT about taking money from Buffet and Immelt, the bullseye is on the middle class, not the upper class)
Um, that's what this does. It lowers the rates and limits deductions. I'm not sure it's the right thing to do, but it certainly addresses your objections.
The Democrats are going to block tax cuts.
Anyway, if they don’t get what they want, they’ll be happy to put the government on the chopping block.
And saddle the GOP with the blame.
Agree to remove the deduction on state/city income taxes.
The burden then falls on RATS in cities and high tax states.
Every single high state tax rated state that I can think of is majority RAT controlled.
I think that’s an excellent idea!
It will also go nowhere.
The plan I heard last week was to lower marginal rates across the board (27% max) and close upper bracket loopholes.
The AP is not going to report that.
IMHO - in order to understand the process, this has to be understood.
Thank you "Go Gordon" for stepping up and taking the flak to help clarify this.
I think the Republican's made their big mistake when they allowed "cutting or eliminating tax breaks" to be referred to as "raising taxes". My understanding is that in many states, as a matter of proper accounting practice, it is the rule that "tax breaks" are an expenditure.
Here's what the Republicans should be saying:"Our Country has a Spending Problem. Tax Breaks are Spending. Eliminating Tax Breaks is a Reduction in Spending:.
Stop spending. ...and the RNC wonders why I don’t send them any money.
who said tax millionaires? I said tax TWO socialist billionaires who are constantly whining that rich ppl like them aren’t paying any taxes. They were never in favor of higher taxes for themselves, only higher taxes on everyone else
You could also tax healthcare plans above that certain rate. That one would hit the public sector unions.
There are plenty of ways to turn their game around on them.
Any tax change that results in 300B more in income is a tax increase. That is what Bonehead and his ilk want. 300B is what percent of the deficit? About 20%. So, is there going to be 1.2T in cuts somewhere. Probably when the moon becomes green cheese.
Our income tax brings in approx 1T now. A 300B increase would be an effective 30% tax rise. Unless they increase the base over which this is spread, like making everyone pay taxes which will happen when the moon becomes gold, that could mean I could see my tax bill go up a few Ks. I am not infavor of that period.
One small issue that has bugged me for years is the “capital gains tax rate” being applied to stock transactions. I can understand how someone buying an IPO or a secondary offering from a company is increasing capital for businesses. I do not see how a purchase of stock from someone who already owns it does one whit of effect upon increasing capital in a business. Why is that not considered ordinary income?
Simple changes to what stocks purchases qualify for capital gains taxes would cause financial speculators like Buffett and his ilk who believe they are not paying enough on their earnings to pay more so perhaps they will be happy.
On the other hand, someone puts money in an IRA, pre tax. The IRA is for many years, it is called a retirement account. You cannot take it out till almost 60yo or pay a huge penalty. Why are these invested funds, even if invested in stock, considered ordinary income.
Folks the game is rigged against the middle class, always was and always will be. When led by a group like Bonehead and McBaconell who kowtow to their rich friends and abhor tea party folk, why would we expect different?
Keep in mind that the extra income from this spending cut, i.e. elimination of tax breaks, would be offset by lowering all the individual tax rates.
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.