Posted on 07/24/2011 7:44:03 AM PDT by jimbo123
If they let the bush tax cuts expire, it is a “tax hike”, but on the other hand that’s the current law as written, so if we do absolutely nothing those taxes are going up anyway.
It’s hard enough to get the democrats to go along with spending cuts. It’s highly unlikely you’d get them to agree to vote for large tax cuts in the form of changing the law to extend those cuts.
Yes, it is a tax increase, and should be called as such, if it happens.
But the $800 billion here is about restructuring the tax code. $400 billion is increased revenue because of the positive effects to the economy of cutting spending. That’s not a tax rate increase, it’s just that people who aren’t paying taxes now because they are unemployed will get jobs and pay taxes.
The other $400 billion is a restructuring of the tax code; we don’t have enough details to know exactly what this entails, but part of it is eliminating some deductions and special tax breaks that are really spending.
Think about it this way. Suppose you have teachers who are paying taxes. Now, you increase spending by a billion dollars for schools, and send that money to teachers in the form of salaries, and give every teacher a $1000 pay raise. We’d all agree that this was increased spending.
Now, suppose instead we pass a tax credit for teachers, where they can get credit for $1000 for money they spend on preparing themselves as teachers. Maybe we include a tax credit of $500 if they help run a midnight basketball program. In other words, the government still has things they want to do, but instead of spending money to hire people to do that, they use tax credits to get people to do it.
It’s the same result — the tax credits are really spending, just instead of government spending, the government gets private citizens to do the spending, and then reimburses them for the spending.
Now, it certainly isn’t easy to figure out which tax breaks are really tax cuts for which elimination would be a tax increase, and which are really just disguised spending.
We know the democrats attack oil tax deductions, where the deductions are actually for depreciation which is a normal business expense, and the tax deductions don’t work to bribe companies into doing the government’s bidding.
That’s how i would start — if a person has to take action they wouldn’t otherwise take, just to get the tax cut, it’s really government spending by proxy. If the democrats attack it, it’s probably a tax cut. But if that means that I can’t get a tax break for buying a Prius, or for putting an energy-efficient A/C in my house, or replacing my refrigerator, that’s OK with me.
And if it means government doesn’t essentially pay for $2500 of my kid’s college (the new tax credit to pay me back for paying a college), that’s OK to.
We need to adjust the tax code so that taxes are broadly applied. We DO need to raise taxes on the 50% of the people who pay no tax, because the founding fathers knew that if people can vote to raise other people’s taxes, we’ll end up with a tyrannical government, which is what has happened with the graduated income tax.
Why would anybody with incomes under $50,000 be against raising taxes, when they don’t pay taxes and the tax increase is meant to give them government handouts?
This is our chance to take away the power of democrats to buy votes from their constituents using millionare’s money. We can’t lose that chance simply because we refuse to let taxes go up at all. It’s worthwhile to allow a small additional revenue stream if it eliminates payouts to democrat constituencies.
John “I admire Ted Kennedy” Bone Head,RINO-Ohio, Get this, NO Taxes Period!! Cut the Damn Spending!Then Decrease the Ceiling!
The tax code change debate should take place in 2013 when there is a GOP President, GOP House and GOP Senate.
Boner and McConnell are idiots for even putting the concept on the table at this time. Typical RINO behavior.
Exactly. And tax code changes in 2013 under a GOP President and GOP Congress.
You mean, when they eliminate the government taxpayer subsidy to homeowners, a subsidy that pays the most to people who put up the least of their own money?
A one-time hit to housing prices, to adjust them for the increased cost of money. Then it’s done.
As it is, home prices rise and fall based on interest rates, because of the varying value of the deduction. People don’t buy houses based on the cash price. They buy based on the monthly payments. So when people lose the deduction, and keep their monthly payment the same, that means they borrow less money, and pay less for the houses.
As it is, a person who wants to buy a house for cash is competing against people who have NO money, who are getting taxpayers (including the cash sale guy) to help them compete against the cash-only purchaser. That is what specialized deductions and credits do — they distort markets and make it unfair, and they encourage people do to the government’s bidding.
get real....he’s holding fast.....don’t believe everything you read.
Boehner insisted the $800 billion would come from a broadened tax base and not from any tax increase. "It was not raising taxes," he said, no doubt mindful of House conservatives' stiff opposition to anything that resembles a tax hike."Broadened tax base" means bringing more people to the place where they have money to be taxed, and eliminating special deductions and credits.
I wonder how many tea partiers would consider the elimination of a refundable tax credit to be a tax increase (refundable credits are "tax credits" given to people who didn't pay taxes, so they are in effect government handouts). So, we could eiminate a tax credit that would save $50 billion in government handouts, but $10 billion would have been handouts to people who actually paid $10 billion in taxes. Is that a tax increase? Is it a spending cut? Is it just too hard to fit into a sound bite?
Time for that 51% that pay NO FEDERAL TAXES to pay SOMETHING!!!
Ya need to grow up.....the debt ceiling must be raised and spending MUST come down.
I don’t, but it is what Boehner said - three times in the last 36hours.
Nobody knows whether the 800 B is from expiration of Bush cuts or not. That’s what we’re looking to find out. If you do have a source, please share it.
“Exactly. And tax code changes in 2013 under a GOP President and GOP Congress.”
YES!!
Me too Popman.
From what I gather, they believe that said cuts are actually cuts that take place after the elimination of Bush tax cuts. I dunno if it is or not. I’m looking for something ... let me know if you find something on that.
I’ve found NO EVIDENCE that Eric Cantor has “gone ballistic” about the Boehner $800 revenue deal.
I’ve searched for Cantor’s name in ANY NEWS in the last three days. There is nothing I can find on the internet to suggest he’s attacked it, or even spoken about it.
I don’t know where people are getting that Cantor is upset about the $800 billion. Maybe it’s true, but it’s not on Cantor’s twitter feed, it’s not on his Facebook page, it’s not in any news stories written as far as I can tell, I haven’t seen an e-mail from him about it.
If he’s gone ballistic, he appears to have done so rather quietly and in private.
That is not good to hear.
But I will ask for a source b/c Boehner rejected deal after deal b/c he said it would increase taxes on job creators. Obviously the two positions are mutually exclusive. So we gotta get to the bottom of it. My source for that is three interviews of Boehner on TV over the last few days. I believe him. If, however, he's lying I will ensure his loss next November.
Cantor statement on Debt Limit negotiations:
"Tonight, months after we had begun negotiations with President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the Administration, Speaker Boehner and I are ending discussions with the White House and beginning conversations with Senate leaders in the hopes of finding a solution to the debt limit debate in order to avoid default. Throughout the months of discussions, we have worked to identify real spending cuts, binding budget reforms, structural changes to save our entitlement programs, and significant debt reduction. Unfortunately, time and again these talks have reached an impasse for one reason: the Democrats’ insistence on raising taxes on small businesses and working families. We must get Washington’s fiscal house in order, but with millions of Americans out of work, the worst thing Washington can do is to raise taxes on those we need to start hiring again. Washington has a spending problem, and until that is fixed, raising taxes is simply asking the American people to send more money to be spent inefficiently.According to his own press release, Cantor was PART OF the negotiations that included the $800 billion. And far from being upset about it, he publicly expresses that he thought the talks were going well until Obama asked for the $400 billion tax increase."In recent days, Speaker Boehner and I have engaged in discussions at the White House with the goal of doing something big to address our debt crisis, just as we did in the House Republican Budget. During these discussions, it became clear that the White House has a fundamental philosophical difference about how we stop spending, begin to get our fiscal house in order and manage down our debt. Contrary to news reports, a deal was never reached with the White House and a deal was never close with the White House – especially after the President insisted on more tax revenue after the Gang of Six plan was released. America will pay its bills and meet its obligations, and in coming days we will offer a path forward that meets the President’s request for a debt limit increase, manages down the debt, and achieves serious spending cuts."
So again, where are you getting the idea that Cantor has gone ballistic, or has denounced the $800 billion? He certainly didn't do so in his official press release where he TOOK CREDIT for being part of the talks.
agreed.
so instead of a net FIT liability of say $0 after credits and deductions on a 6% rate - someone could have a FIT liability of $300 on a 3% rate.
BTTT
Boehner could tell us right now what’s in the details. Apparently he prefers not to.
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.