GOP softens stance on taxes

[JEDI]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ppears-to-shift-gop%e2%80%99s-tax-stance/

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell reiterated previous Republican opposition to higher taxes but changed one word by specifying that he and the GOP are against higher tax "rates."

Chris Wallace of Fox caught the distinction and asked McConnell if his language indicated he was open to collecting more tax revenue by ending some subsidies and loopholes. McConnell deflected the question.


so how is ending subsidies and loopholes not equivalent to raising tax rates for those affected people/companies?

i, for one, wished this softer tax stance was done b4 the oil substidy vote earlier this month. oil companies kept their billions in substidys

 

[Jhhnn]

For Repub leaders, raising taxes on the wealthiest is unthinkable, particularly raising LTCG rates and inheritance tax rates, but doing away with EITC and all the deductions many middle class families enjoy is a necessary form of austerity, obviously. Cut Medicare & SS while we're at it.

They're sticking to the company line- Low taxes for "Job Creators", even though they're just hoarding cash, gambling with synthetic derivatives, to uhh, stim-uh-late thu 'conomy, yeh, that's it. Higher taxes on the rest of the population who actually spend what they earn won't have any negative effects, either, Right? Of course not, at least not for the people at the top.

Paying taxes is for little people. Live it. Love it. Vote Republican- they're so nice that they'll drive you home, if you know what I mean...

 

[matt0611]

For Repub leaders, raising taxes on the wealthiest is unthinkable, particularly raising LTCG rates and inheritance tax rates, but doing away with EITC and all the deductions many middle class families enjoy is a necessary form of austerity, obviously. Cut Medicare & SS while we're at it.

They're sticking to the company line- Low taxes for "Job Creators", even though they're just hoarding cash, gambling with synthetic derivatives, to uhh, stim-uh-late thu 'conomy, yeh, that's it. Higher taxes on the rest of the population who actually spend what they earn won't have any negative effects, either, Right? Of course not, at least not for the people at the top.

Paying taxes is for little people. Live it. Love it. Vote Republican- they're so nice that they'll drive you home, if you know what I mean...

Almost 50% pay no federal income tax, so how are taxes for the little people?

 

[boomerang]

Here we go again.....

 

[Rainsford]

The problem for Republicans is that their marketing about taxes worked a little too well. Taxes aren't a policy or economic issue to carefully debate in terms of overall rates and in terms of who shoulders more or less of the tax burden. No indeed, taxes are the ultimate evil perpetrated by the government on patriotic Americans to satisfy their Batman villain like motives.

Which is great, except that tax revenue is still required to fund the government, and for all the TEA Party absolutism, I think more moderate Republicans realize that it will be hard to solve all our budget problems by cutting spending (especially when the cuts seem to be driven mostly by what Republicans hate). Except with the moral argument about taxes, they've sort of backed themselves into a corner with EVER arguing for raising taxes, on anyone, even a little bit.

 

[Rainsford]

Almost 50% pay no federal income tax, so how are taxes for the little people?

The problem is really wealth distribution in this country. The bottom 50% don't pay federal income tax (not EXACTLY true, but close enough) because they control an incredibly small fraction of the wealth (I've seen figures as low as 2.5%). The further you go up the income scale, the more disproportionate the percentage of taxes the people pay...because they control a more and more disproportionate amount of the wealth.

The thing is, as you get closer to the top of the income scale, peoples' share of wealth goes up faster then their share of taxes. Because tax law benefits the ways rich people make income far more than the ways middle class people make income, stories about CEOs paying a smaller percentage of their income to taxes than their secretaries are absolutely true.

Basically, the "little people" don't get screwed by taxes, because they don't have any money. The rich people don't get screwed, because they're in a position to take advantage of favorable tax law. The people getting screwed with their pants on are the middle class.

 

[matt0611]

The problem for Republicans is that their marketing about taxes worked a little too well. Taxes aren't a policy or economic issue to carefully debate in terms of overall rates and in terms of who shoulders more or less of the tax burden. No indeed, taxes are the ultimate evil perpetrated by the government on patriotic Americans to satisfy their Batman villain like motives.

Which is great, except that tax revenue is still required to fund the government, and for all the TEA Party absolutism, I think more moderate Republicans realize that it will be hard to solve all our budget problems by cutting spending (especially when the cuts seem to be driven mostly by what Republicans hate). Except with the moral argument about taxes, they've sort of backed themselves into a corner with EVER arguing for raising taxes, on anyone, even a little bit.

So, it will be easier to raise revenues by 40%? Yeah, right.

The problem with democrats is that they won't admit government spending has gotten out of control and/or they won't do shit about it.

 

[Rainsford]

So, it will be easier to raise revenues by 40%? Yeah, right.

The problem with democrats is that they won't admit government spending has gotten out of control and/or they won't do shit about it.

Read my post again. I'm of the opinion that trying to make up the budget shortfall JUST by cutting spending is stupid. Spending cuts, where they make sense, are good. Making up some of the shortfall on the revenue side when possible ALSO makes sense. It's not all THAT complicated of a position, I think...

The problem isn't Democrats or Republicans, it's people who think our problems are best solved by absolutely refusing to compromise and sticking rigidly to one ideology while trying at every opportunity to snipe at the opposition.

 

[nick1985]

We just need to spread the wealth around

 

[Darwin333]

For Repub leaders, raising taxes on the wealthiest is unthinkable, particularly raising LTCG rates and inheritance tax rates, but doing away with EITC and all the deductions many middle class families enjoy is a necessary form of austerity, obviously. Cut Medicare & SS while we're at it.

They're sticking to the company line- Low taxes for "Job Creators", even though they're just hoarding cash, gambling with synthetic derivatives, to uhh, stim-uh-late thu 'conomy, yeh, that's it. Higher taxes on the rest of the population who actually spend what they earn won't have any negative effects, either, Right? Of course not, at least not for the people at the top.

Paying taxes is for little people. Live it. Love it. Vote Republican- they're so nice that they'll drive you home, if you know what I mean...

Its not like your sides tax increases will even dent the deficit and neither side is willing to actually pay for our lifestyle so seriously, who really gives a fuck at this point?

I say reduce everyones taxes to zero and ride this puppy till the wheels fall off. The end result is the same but at least we get to have a bit of fun before then. Oh yeah, free hookers and blow for everyone too.

 

[boomerang]

We just need to spread the wealth around

They're getting closer to having the populous believe this. We've got a lot of believers right here.

 

[Darwin333]

Read my post again. I'm of the opinion that trying to make up the budget shortfall JUST by cutting spending is stupid. Spending cuts, where they make sense, are good. Making up some of the shortfall on the revenue side when possible ALSO makes sense. It's not all THAT complicated of a position, I think...

The problem isn't Democrats or Republicans, it's people who think our problems are best solved by absolutely refusing to compromise and sticking rigidly to one ideology while trying at every opportunity to snipe at the opposition.

Ding ding ding.

Although I personally think our absolute biggest problem is that people say they want a balanced budget right up until they find out what spending cuts and tax increases are required to get us there.

"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man under the tree" is our basic attitude about both taxes AND spending cuts.

 

[Rainsford]

We just need to spread the wealth around

I know "redistribution" is a dirty word for conservatives, but wealth can be redistributed both ways. And for the last several decades it's been steadily being "redistributed" towards the top. Is that really better?

 

[Rainsford]

Ding ding ding.

Although I personally think our absolute biggest problem is that people say they want a balanced budget right up until they find out what spending cuts and tax increases are required to get us there.

"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man under the tree" is our basic attitude about both taxes AND spending cuts.

What do you expect from a group of voters that have an incredibly hard time managing their OWN budgets? Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, in their personal lives and when it comes to the government. The idea that you balance your budget by some combination of spending less and making more is incredibly simple, and yet seems to be extremely hard to actually DO.

 

[Jhhnn]

Almost 50% pay no federal income tax, so how are taxes for the little people?

Federal income taxes obviously aren't the only taxes, and we need to clarify who the little people really are. They're anybody not among the super rich. From a super rich perspective, most of the people in the top 1% are still little people.

These two links help define my perspective-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=260

In the first link, notice how total taxes are actually lower for the top 1% than for the top 4% immediately below them, particularly state & local taxes. Notice that effective federal income tax rates have fallen sharply in the second link wrt the top 400 filers vs the rest of the top 1%, from 22% to 17%.

There's a trend there- people whose incomes derive from investment rather than work pay lower federal taxes on that income, and that means the people at the top. They also pay a lower % of income in state & local taxes, even at the level of the top 1%.If we put the data from the two charts together, there's a very strong indication that America's wealthiest, let's say the top .01%, pay total tax rates very similar to those in the middle, and less than people closer to the upper end.

25% in total taxes represents significant sacrifice for people in the middle, while it affects the lifestyles people with enormous incomes very little if at all. The marginal utility of money falls off quickly at extremely high income levels, obviously.

Republican strategists have created this situation across decades, and will continue to expand the prerogatives of extreme wealth every chance they get. When revenues need to be raised, they'll do their best to get them from the non-rich, and when spending needs to be cut, they'll attempt to take it out of the hides of the same target population. All we need to do is examine the Ryan budget to figure that out.

 

[nick1985]

I know "redistribution" is a dirty word for conservatives, but wealth can be redistributed both ways. And for the last several decades it's been steadily being "redistributed" towards the top. Is that really better?

So lets take it from the rich and pass it around to the have-nots

 

[ProfJohn]

Our problem is TOO much spending.

Doubling the taxes on the rich isn't going to make that problem go away. If anything it will just give congress more money to spend.

Raising taxes should be the last thing we do after we:
1. reduce rate of spending increases
2. entitlement reform
3. Social Security and Medicare reform
4. tax reform that eliminates wasteful programs such as oil, ethanol, NPR, Planned Parenthood etc etc

THEN and only then should we look at increasing revenue via tax increases for EVERYONE.

We need to widen the tax base by taxing nearly everyone who works AND we need to increase rates on the wealthy by creating higher tax brackets.

 

[Rainsford]

So lets take it from the rich and pass it around to the have-nots

Hey, you're the one who's so opposed to wealth redistribution on principle, I'm just seeing if you care as much when it's taking from the poor and passing around to haves

Personally, I think arguing tax policy based on communist ideology or fear of communist ideology are equally silly positions. Taxes are how we fund government. No matter how little government we have, it's not free and we have to pay for it somehow. Taxing people who have all the money is the only way the system is going to work.

 

[Rainsford]

Our problem is TOO much spending.

Doubling the taxes on the rich isn't going to make that problem go away. If anything it will just give congress more money to spend.

Raising taxes should be the last thing we do after we:
1. reduce rate of spending increases
2. entitlement reform
3. Social Security and Medicare reform
4. tax reform that eliminates wasteful programs such as oil, ethanol, NPR, Planned Parenthood etc etc

THEN and only then should we look at increasing revenue via tax increases for EVERYONE.

We need to widen the tax base by taxing nearly everyone who works AND we need to increase rates on the wealthy by creating higher tax brackets.

Cutting spending is fine, but it CAN'T be ideologically based or it's doomed from the start. Programs aren't "wasteful" just because you dislike some of what they do. Can you REALLY make the argument that Planned Parenthood doesn't give us better value for our investment than other government programs? Or is it just "OMG, THEY DO ABORTIONS!!!"?

And what's worse, you're going after ideologically based spending that's at best symbolic. Planned Parenthood and NPR may be on the list of right-wing villains, but their funding is a TINY percentage of government spending while the blatant partisanship of making them targets makes a budget compromise with liberals that much harder.

I honestly can't take Republicans seriously when they call for a "balanced budget" by cutting NPR funding and making no mention of ridiculously wasteful defense spending, particularly on contractors.

 

[First]

Taxes will rise, be it through increased rates or ending subsidies/loopholes. It's an inevitable fact. The only question is whether the Repubs will pretend it's a tax cut when/if the parties agree to the later (i.e. claiming they've cut tax rates without actually mentioning they've ended tax credits/loopholes in other areas in the the process).

 

[ProfJohn]

We do need to look at our military and do some drastic cuts on it, long term.

I read today where we spent $600 million to extend the life of the USS Enterprise so it could take two more tours of duty.

Perhaps we should have retired it early and made do with what we have.

 

[Rainsford]

We do need to look at our military and do some drastic cuts on it, long term.

I read today where we spent $600 million to extend the life of the USS Enterprise so it could take two more tours of duty.

Perhaps we should have retired it early and made do with what we have.

Agreed. And for what it's worth, I think much of our entitlement spending can be revamped to cost less...maybe even without cutting benefits much if we're clever about it. But it's possible benefits will need to be cut, and if so I think we should do it. Social Security in particular was intended for an age when life expectancy was much less than it is today. I'd like the system to work exactly like it did when it was created for retired folks, but the simple fact is that there's no obvious way this can happen.

 

[Jhhnn]

Our problem is TOO much spending.

Doubling the taxes on the rich isn't going to make that problem go away. If anything it will just give congress more money to spend.

Raising taxes should be the last thing we do after we:
1. reduce rate of spending increases
2. entitlement reform
3. Social Security and Medicare reform
4. tax reform that eliminates wasteful programs such as oil, ethanol, NPR, Planned Parenthood etc etc

THEN and only then should we look at increasing revenue via tax increases for EVERYONE.

We need to widen the tax base by taxing nearly everyone who works AND we need to increase rates on the wealthy by creating higher tax brackets.

Heh. You just said what I offered that Republican strategists want to do- cut benefits and raise effective taxes for everybody who's not super rich, then we can talk about raising taxes at the top, maybe, but don't touch capital gains taxes- huh-uhh!- because that where most of the income of the super rich comes from...

In right wing parlance, "Reform" means screw the little guy, always.

And never, ever cut the military, because their job is to protect the offshore interests of American capitalists more than anything else.

I saw you added the military, but only in a small way. There may be hope for you yet.

 

[Zebo]

For Repub leaders, raising taxes on the wealthiest is unthinkable, particularly raising LTCG rates and inheritance tax rates, but doing away with EITC and all the deductions many middle class families enjoy is a necessary form of austerity, obviously. Cut Medicare & SS while we're at it.

They're sticking to the company line- Low taxes for "Job Creators", even though they're just hoarding cash, gambling with synthetic derivatives, to uhh, stim-uh-late thu 'conomy, yeh, that's it. Higher taxes on the rest of the population who actually spend what they earn won't have any negative effects, either, Right? Of course not, at least not for the people at the top.

Paying taxes is for little people. Live it. Love it. Vote Republican- they're so nice that they'll drive you home, if you know what I mean...

Don't forget 30 years of heavy duty off shoring reaping enormous profit off slave labor which creates no American jobs. It takes them. You can also bet against making American jobs known as short selling.

 

[Zebo]

Not sure why redistribution is a dirty word. USA was founded on redistribution. What do you think homesteading was? Essentially stealing land from rich Indians and giving it to poor impoverished Europeans who came from systems where all wealth and power was collected in a few hands which it always does in any economic system like laws of gravity aka Matthew effect. And you have two choices to correct that concentration historically revolution like what going on in Egypt where a man is worth 80 billion and everyone else $2 a day or redistribution like we practiced until Reagan to provide opportunity SBA loans, Education, and so on.

My favorite president, Eisenhower, with a republican house and senate actually raised taxes on the rich to 92% to pay off crushing war debt and build the largest infrastructure project world has ever seen providing millions of highly paid union jobs.