[EGPWS]

“We can increase revenues by adjusting the tax code and lowering it,”

Isn't that code for tax increases?

[SeekAndFind]

How can lowering it mean increasing it?

[aruanan]

Isn't that code for tax increases?

Not exactly. I heard someone on Don Wade and Roma (WLSAM) this morning talking about how there were built into the current tax law specific exemptions for some of the very rich and that the adjustment of the tax code meant getting rid of these exemptions and returning the top rate across the board to 28% (similar to what it was when the last phase of Reagan's tax cuts took effect) and a second, much lower rate, for the rest.

[SatinDoll]

He mentioned cutting tax subsidies for ethanol. I could agree to that!

Cut sending money overseas to other nations; stop paying welfare to illegal aliens; cut subsidies to all different kinds of businesses - before we know it, it could all add up to billions.

[Nervous Tick]

>> “We can increase revenues by adjusting the tax code and lowering it,”
>> Isn’t that code for tax increases?

Sure it is. But more precisely, it’s code for “increase taxes on everyone but YOU PERSONALLY {wink wink nudge nudge}.”

[BuddhaBrown]

“Isn’t that code for tax increases?”

YES!

And I’m ALL for it.

When conservatives use words like “broadening the base” and “flattening the rates”, they usually mean more people will be paying and fewer will be getting a free federal ride as do half the population today.

Rush used to joke about “raising taxes on the poor”. But that is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Not for the sake of generating more revenue. But for the simple purpose of restraining their seemingly endless lust for other peoples money.

Closing Richie Rich loopholes and such is great too as part of a simplification strategy. But taxing the tit suckers is a way to get them to at least come up for air.

In other words:

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!