• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush Pledges To Make Changes To Tax Code

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Contending Americans have embraced his conservative agenda, President Bush (news - web sites) pledged Thursday to aggressively pursue major changes in Social Security (news - web sites), the tax code and medical malpractice awards, working with Democrats if they are receptive and leaving them behind if they're not.

"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush said a day after a decisive victory that made him the first president in 68 years to win re-election and gain seats in both the House and Senate.

"I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals," said Bush, who 24 hours earlier had promised to try to win over those who voted for his Democratic opponent.

Buoyant and relaxed on Thursday, Bush cracked jokes at his first postelection news conference and said he had not decided on any changes in his Cabinet for the second term. He took congratulatory calls from world leaders from Russia, Poland, Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites), Israel and Italy before flying to Camp David for four days of rest after the grueling campaign.

As U.S. forces in Iraq mobilize for an all-out offensive in Fallujah and other Sunni militant strongholds, the president refused to say how much the war would cost or whether he planned to increase or cut troop strengths. "I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops," the president said. He is expected to ask Congress early next year for up to $75 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and operations against terrorism.

The president was unapologetic about the unpopularity of his decisions in many world capitals, such as his commitment to spread democracy in the Middle East. "Listen, I've made some very hard decisions: decisions to protect ourselves, decisions to spread peace and freedom." The war on terror would remain a priority, he said.

Bush said that at home, he had set an unmistakable direction for the country and he emphasized anew he does not foresee the need for any tax increase despite big budget deficits.

Coming from a campaign that offered clear policy choices, Bush said, "When you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress." He urged lawmakers to show discipline on spending bills and to enact an intelligence reform bill when they return to town later this month.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats were stunned by some unexpected losses in the Senate and the defeat of their leader, Tom Daschle, an 18-year veteran. Republicans also gained seats in the House. Democrats promised to challenge Bush's priorities.

"What the president is doing in fiscal policy is weakening the country, making us more vulnerable. It's so strange," said Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota, top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "There's no free lunch, and at the end of the day our country will have a tremendous price to pay for this profligacy."

Said Bush, "I readily concede I've laid out some very difficult issues for people to deal with. And I would hope to be able to work with Democrats to get this done."

In setting priorities, Bush said some issues would be at the front of the line simply because they have been at the center of the political arena before. Capping medical malpractice limits, a prized goal of Republicans, will be one of his first proposals because it "had been debated and got thwarted a couple of times," the president said.

Education initiatives could move quickly, too, Bush said, while Social Security reform "will require some additional legwork."

Another divisive issue, reforming the complicated U.S. tax system, is "going to take a lot of legwork to get something ready for a legislative package. I fully understand that," the president said. He has avoided specifics but has said ideas such as a national sales tax deserve study.

"I've earned capital in this election _and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is ? you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror," the president said.

Complaining about political bitterness and division, Bush said there was "a certain practicality to life here in Washington. And that is, when you get a bill moving, it is important to get the votes, and if politics starts to get in the way of getting good legislation through, you know, that's just part of life here."

He said he was hoping for bipartisan support but focused on results.

In an election where voters said moral values were the primary issue, Bush cautioned against suggestions that the United States was becoming politically divided by religion.

"I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion," Bush said. "As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. ... The great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you ? you don't have to worship."
 
The problem is that they do nothing to lower our health care costs, and they play right into the big Pharms pockets because they won't be as liable when the have a big fvck up (can anybody say Vioxx?).

And WTF is up with the national sales tax BS?
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The problem is that they do nothing to lower our health care costs, and they play right into the big Pharms pockets because they won't be as liable when the have a big fvck up (can anybody say Vioxx?).

And WTF is up with the national sales tax BS?

great for me as I work for big pharma and plan on moving to another big pharma if things work out or stay where I am thanks to Bush getting in... 🙂

Also comming from MA I have no problem with a national sales tax as long as our local state sales tax is dropped...I would love to see luxury purchases get taxed at a much higher rate than standard items also
 
Bush Plans Tax Code Overhaul
(would scrap deduction for employer-sponsored health insurance)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A58554-2004Nov17.html
The Bush administration is eyeing an overhaul of the tax code that would drastically cut, if not eliminate, taxes on savings and investment, but it is unlikely to try to replace the existing tax code with a single flat income tax rate or a national sales tax, according to several sources familiar with ongoing tax deliberations.

During his reelection campaign, President Bush piqued interest among conservatives and liberals alike when he said replacing the income tax with a national sales tax was "an interesting idea." Just after the election he signaled that tax policy would be a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, reiterating his pledge to name a bipartisan panel to draft a fundamental tax reform proposal. That sent conservatives scurrying into either the flat tax or sales tax camp to muster political momentum.

But before the tax panel is even named, administration officials have begun dialing back expectations that they will move to scrap the current graduated income tax for another system.

Instead the administration plans to push major amendments that would shield interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth, according to several people who are advising the White House or are familiar with the deliberations.

The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said.

As the tax discussion takes shape, "we're not talking about a replacement system," said a former White House aide familiar with the emerging policy.

White House aides warn that no decisions have been made. "The president believes the tax code should be simpler, fairer, and more conducive to economic growth and he looks forward to appointing an advisory panel to review options for reforming the tax code," White House spokeswoman Clare Buchan said.

"They [the panel] will be asked to review all options, to seek input from members of Congress, to hold public hearings and then provide advice to the Treasury secretary, who will provide recommendations to the president."

She said she expects an executive order laying out the panel's mission and naming its members by the end of the year.

But already, the contours of a tax plan are taking shape: lower individual and corporate tax rates and steps to broaden the base of taxation and promote growth by cutting taxes on investment.

CONTINUED
Isn't that a flip-flop from his talk during the campaign? Naaah...Bush would surely never flip-flop. :roll:
 
I'm amazed at the idea of revoking the tax break for health insurance. Can anyone tell me why that's a good idea?
 
Originally posted by: Thera
I'm amazed at the idea of revoking the tax break for health insurance. Can anyone tell me why that's a good idea?

Because it is a way to slip in a tax increase without actually raising taxes.
 
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: Thera
I'm amazed at the idea of revoking the tax break for health insurance. Can anyone tell me why that's a good idea?

Because it is a way to slip in a tax increase without actually raising taxes.

I guess this can be chalked up as another moral victory for the ruling class. 😕
 
Originally posted by: lordtyranus
I fail to see what is wrong with capping medical malpractice lawsuits.

Well, if someone ruins your life and you only get $100,000 in damages don't complain...



 
Caps do not apply to medical costs. They apply to the pain and suffering which is sometimes in the millions. I think there should be a limit on the pain and suffering based on the severity of the Injury; not just one and only one cap. I could see how some injuries or some circumstances might require higher caps, and I can also see how some lesser cases should have lower caps.
 
I want Bush to privatize SS 100%, either by redirecting payroll taxes into private accounts or eliminating them, and pay current SS oligations out of income taxes and borrowing. Currently the govt is raiding payroll taxes to cover shortfalls in income tax revenue. We need to reverse that and make the govt raid income taxes to cover payroll tax shortfalls. I think that's the quickest path to eliminating the regressive payroll taxation and eventually replacing it with higher progressive income taxes.
The progressive position here is to shift the tax burden up by doing 2 things:
1. Eliminate regressive payroll taxation.
2. Raise progressive income taxes to compensate for the shortfall.
Obviously Bush is only going to do #1, but #2 will be inevitable when SS and medicare demands rise. This is a no-brainer from the progressive point of view, and I am surprised the Democrats aren't going along with it. I would much rather my payroll taxes go into a private account than to relieve taxation burden on the wealthy.
 
Social Security has to be overhauled or this country will crumble. Bad plan that was scammed onto the people of this country when they didnt even usually live to use it.

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Social Security has to be overhauled or this country will crumble. Bad plan that was scammed onto the people of this country when they didnt even usually live to use it.
Too bad Bush sold away the chance to save it 4 years ago.
 
Originally posted by: Thera
I'm amazed at the idea of revoking the tax break for health insurance. Can anyone tell me why that's a good idea?

It provides incentive for business to eliminate the heavy burden of providing health care for their employees... and that will increase profits which is taxable and so generate more revenue for the tax man and pay down the National Debt... of course the employee will pay for his insurance - if he carries it - out of his pocket and most low income folks take the standard deduction so there is no tax reduction there..

Gotta love this one...

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Social Security has to be overhauled or this country will crumble. Bad plan that was scammed onto the people of this country when they didnt even usually live to use it.

I agree... everyone under 45 should no longer be covered by Social Security. Folks over 45 continue as the plan provides. In time they will no longer be an issue.. about the same time the plan runs out of money. The under 45 folks.... well.... it is in your Nation's interest for you to give up the money.. maybe get a tax credit for what you've paid in..

Gotta love that one too.

 
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Genx87
Social Security has to be overhauled or this country will crumble. Bad plan that was scammed onto the people of this country when they didnt even usually live to use it.

I agree... everyone under 45 should no longer be covered by Social Security. Folks over 45 continue as the plan provides. In time they will no longer be an issue.. about the same time the plan runs out of money. The under 45 folks.... well.... it is in your Nation's interest for you to give up the money.. maybe get a tax credit for what you've paid in..

Gotta love that one too.

I would tend to agree on that one. Would not only be nice to get the 6.2% of my money back, it would also be nice to get a portion of the matching 6.2% that the company puts in also.

There could be problems (safety net needed, crashed markets, etc).
 
Originally posted by: conjur
This is what he means by overhauling??

http://www.nytimes.com/financi...mp;en=6400cd3048025e37
Senator Judd Gregg, incoming chairman of the Senate budget committee, has added language to the spending bill that would halt OECD funding unless the organisation stops pressing tax-haven countries in the Caribbean and elsewhere to share information on companies that may be attempting to evade taxes.
😕

WTF????
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Genx87
Social Security has to be overhauled or this country will crumble. Bad plan that was scammed onto the people of this country when they didnt even usually live to use it.

I agree... everyone under 45 should no longer be covered by Social Security. Folks over 45 continue as the plan provides. In time they will no longer be an issue.. about the same time the plan runs out of money. The under 45 folks.... well.... it is in your Nation's interest for you to give up the money.. maybe get a tax credit for what you've paid in..

Gotta love that one too.

I would tend to agree on that one. Would not only be nice to get the 6.2% of my money back, it would also be nice to get a portion of the matching 6.2% that the company puts in also.

There could be problems (safety net needed, crashed markets, etc).

Yep.. well I didn't say Fica/Medicare but that is what I meant..

It would be nice to get the matched portion of the 7.65% - I think the Medicare side is what is gonna break the bank.. although it is now costing retirees extra to carry coverage even with the Medicare - But I don't think they'd let that fly... even though it is considered a benefit to the Ee.... and should be returned if they do abolish the Plan..

The safety net is in your 401k.. which should be made tax free for Medical draws and already is penalty free if used for catastrophic medical.. I think that is one of the 4 or 5 items penalty free already. Failing that there is the State if one does not have assets.. And if one does.. then they should use them, I guess.
I favor free medical nationally but if we ain't gonna provide it then I guess it is gonna be survival of the fittest... literally. At least a means test will insure that every one can get health care somewhere.
 
Originally posted by: her209
I fail to see what is wrong with capping health care costs.

Cost of health care is made up of many components. The latest and greatest technology becomes obsolete in a few days almost and to amortize those costs on a diminishing patient base is problematic. Everyone is a specialist meaning one has to see 5 MD's where it used to take only one GP to treat a bunion. Then MED/MAL is an issue that isn't really going away any time soon, I don't think. The professional staff (MD's) have to spend years before they start earning the $ and I think they deserve it.. Med school costs and Undergrad school costs are rising every minute. I think the big issue is the free market and the health care needs are always in conflict. Not enough preventative medicine is funded causing significant health care costs in the out years. We seem to live in a country where health issues are for those who can afford to be sick and when the ones who can't are treated someone somewhere has to pay for it.
 
Back
Top