• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

80 CEOs: cut spending AND hike taxes

AdamT

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unlike a certain former businessman who is now running for president, 80 actual CEOs of major U.S. companies are urging Congress to tackle the debt in the only sensible way possible: by addressing both sides of the ledger.

The CEOs who signed the manifesto deem tax increases inevitable no matter which party succeeds at the polls in November. "There is no possible way; you can do the arithmetic a million different ways" to avoid raising taxes, said Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna. "You can't tax your way to fix this problem, and you can't cut entitlements enough to fix this problem."

...

The executives called the Simpson-Bowles commission approach—about $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases—an "effective framework" for addressing what they termed "a serious threat to the economic well-being and security of the U.S."

CEOs Call for Deficit Action - WSJ.com
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
Unlike a certain former businessman who is now running for president, 80 actual CEOs of major U.S. companies are urging Congress to tackle the debt in the only sensible way possible: by addressing both sides of the ledger.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the sentiment of these CEOs.

But if they honestly feel this way, they should put their money where their mouths are.

Like hiring lobbyists themselves to get Representatives and Senators in Congress to listen to them.

Otherwise, I will assume that these CEOs do support tax increases - just not on the products that their companies sell.
 
AdamT said:
Unlike a certain former businessman who is now running for president, 80 actual CEOs of major U.S. companies are urging Congress to tackle the debt in the only sensible way possible: by addressing both sides of the ledger.
Click to expand...

The CEOs, in a statement to be released on Thursday, say any fiscal plan "that can succeed both financially and politically" has to limit the growth of health-care spending, make Social Security solvent and "include comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty much like Romney. Especially this:

The executives didn't endorse Mr. Obama's proposal to raise the marginal income-tax rates for the top 2% of taxpayers or any other proposal. Rather, they called for an overhaul of the tax code that, among things, would eliminate or reduce deductions, credits and loopholes (known as "broadening the base"), and one that also would bring the Treasury more revenue than the existing code does.
Click to expand...
 
I think more folks would entertain higher taxes if it weren’t for hearing crap like this:

The Obama extravaganza two years ago for Mexican President Felipe Calderon, which included a performance by pop star Beyonce, cost $969,793, or more than $4,700 per attendee, the documents show.

The chief usher of the White House from the Reagan to George W. Bush presidencies, Walters…said neither of them could recall entertainment costs anywhere near those revealed in the documents provided to The Examiner…"The highest [cost] event we could remember was $190,000 to $200,000 range, and that was for a very large dinner outside that was probably somewhere in the vicinity of 500 people with two different tents," Walters said, noting that the event was held under President Clinton.
Click to expand...
Spending on White House dinners soars under Obama | WashingtonExaminer.com

$4,700 per plate…are you KIDDING? What could have been done with that money to HELP ‘regular folks’?
 
AdamT said:
Unlike a certain former businessman who is now running for president, 80 actual CEOs of major U.S. companies are urging Congress to tackle the debt in the only sensible way possible: by addressing both sides of the ledger.
Click to expand...
That's 80 out of 7000. In other words, 1 out of 100 CEOs supports the Obamaplan.
 
Taylor said:
That's 80 out of 7000. In other words, 1 out of 100 CEOs supports the Obamaplan.
Click to expand...

They don't support the Obama plan. Read my post above . . . it's more Romney than Romney.
 
I love when a Liberal does this. Half the time you're hating on the CEOs. Now all of a sudden they are worth paying attention to?
 
MaggieD said:
Sounds pretty much like Romney. Especially this:
Click to expand...

The executives didn't endorse Mr. Obama's proposal to raise the marginal income-tax rates for the top 2% of taxpayers or any other proposal. Rather, they called for an overhaul of the tax code that, among things, would eliminate or reduce deductions, credits and loopholes (known as "broadening the base"), and one that also would bring the Treasury more revenue than the existing code does.
Click to expand...

The problem is, though, that many corporations pay lobbyists to get Congress to pass those deductions, credits, and loopholes in the first place.

Granted, it's so they can get a competitive edge since all the other corporations are doing it too, and if they didn't do it they couldn't be in business.

So the question then becomes whether or not the whole of American corporations will band together to lobby Congress for this or whether each American corporation will look out only for their individual interests and profits?
 
my guess is that most credible economists would agree. one sided austerity would be a disaster, and even two-sided austerity has the potential to cause serious problems if it is implemented too quickly and not phased in.
 
MaggieD said:
Sounds pretty much like Romney. Especially this:
Click to expand...

Of course the difference is that Romney has sworn that he won't increase taxes, which contradicts their main theme: this problem must be addressed from both the revenue side and the spending side. That is Obama's plan, though I would agree he doesn't go far enough in either direction.
 
AdamT said:
Of course the difference is that Romney has sworn that he won't increase taxes, which contradicts their main theme: this problem must be addressed from both the revenue side and the spending side. That is Obama's plan, though I would agree he doesn't go far enough in either direction.
Click to expand...

You don't have to raise taxes if you close loopholes and disallow deductions. Is it really that hard to understand? Revenue gets increased. Tax rates stay the same. If I, as a million-dollar earner, suddenly can't deduct $25,000 in mortgage interest, I'm going to pay more in taxes. This isn't rocket science.
 
MaggieD said:
You don't have to raise taxes if you close loopholes and disallow deductions. Is it really that hard to understand? Revenue gets increased. Tax rates stay the same. If I, as a million-dollar earner, suddenly can't deduct $25,000 in mortgage interest, I'm going to pay more in taxes. This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

Right, I should have been more exact; Romney says he will not raise REVENUE, which is what the CEOs say we must do, along with cutting spending.
 
AdamT said:
Right, I should have been more exact; Romney says he will not raise REVENUE, which is what the CEOs say we must do, along with cutting spending.
Click to expand...

Link to that? That doesn't make sense.
 
Helix said:
my guess is that most credible economists would agree. one sided austerity would be a disaster, and even two-sided austerity has the potential to cause serious problems if it is implemented too quickly and not phased in.
Click to expand...

You need a sales tax. Don't see much way around that. Income taxes reduce incentives to generate income (however modestly). Sales taxes do somewhat increase incentives to save, but since you guys arn't saving anything anyways, not the worst of ideas there either.

Given how big your debt is, even 8-10 years to balance your budget is too long.

In any event though, Romney is still head and shoulders above Obama, whose only remedy is a bit of demogoguery about the "rich" which could onyl have a limited impact on revenues and no actual intention to control spending. Oh, and a completely dysfunctional economic philosophy.
 
AdamT said:
Unlike a certain former businessman who is now running for president, 80 actual CEOs of major U.S. companies are urging Congress to tackle the debt in the only sensible way possible: by addressing both sides of the ledger.
Click to expand...

I say make the cuts first.The government can not be trusted to cut spending and raise taxes at the same time. They should prove to the American public that they are actually serious about controlling the spending and reducing the debt by making every cut they can by cutting programs, merging overlapping programs, cutting foreign aid, reducing military spending and so. If those cuts are not enough and it is proven that those cuts are not enough then and only then should taxes be increased.
 
AdamT said:
Right, I should have been more exact; Romney says he will not raise REVENUE, which is what the CEOs say we must do, along with cutting spending.
Click to expand...

Could be mistaken, but doesn't he say that any revenue increases will come from accelerated growth, which he anticipates will happen because he isn't following Obama's dysfunctional approach to economic management?
 
AdamT said:
Unlike a certain former businessman who is now running for president, 80 actual CEOs of major U.S. companies are urging Congress to tackle the debt in the only sensible way possible: by addressing both sides of the ledger.
Click to expand...

This is a ploy to cut out competition. Raising taxes on millionares isn't going to hurt millionares. It will prevent and discourage people from becoming millionares, hence fewer people that these CEO's have to compete with for their jobs.

Too much taxation hurts the little guy, who is trying to work his way up, not the people that are already up there, basically creating a permanent peasantry.
 
MaggieD said:
Link to that? That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Wow. Romney has said a million times that his tax plan is revenue neutral. That means it would neither cut nor add revenue. Have you not been paying attention?
 
There is nothing stopping those CEOs from voluntarily cutting their own salaries and giving more of their money to the Government

That doesn't mean they have a right to dictate and force all of the other CEOs to do the same, nor does it give the Government the right either

Giving the money for Obama to spend is going to fix our Economy how?
 
AdamT said:
Wow. Romney has said a million times that his tax plan is revenue neutral. That means it would neither cut nor add revenue. Have you not been paying attention?
Click to expand...

Mind linking me to one of those millions?
 
apdst said:
This is a ploy to cut out competition. Raising taxes on millionares isn't going to hurt millionares. It will prevent and discourage people from becoming millionares, hence fewer people that these CEO's have to compete with for their jobs.

Too much taxation hurts the little guy, who is trying to work his way up, not the people that are already up there, basically creating a permanent peasantry.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? That's about the most illogical post I've ever read. Do you really imagine that anyone is going to say, "I don't want to be a millionaire, even though I would be paying the same rate on the amount I'm earning now, because I would be paying 4% more than wealthy people pay now on income over $250k"?

Seriously?
 
"Millionaires". Only in a country led by a clueless deranged Liberal is an individual who earns $200,000 a year defined as a "millionaire".

I wonder if Obama thinks that 2 dimes are worth the same thing as a dollar bill.
 
AdamT said:
Wow. Romney has said a million times that his tax plan is revenue neutral. That means it would neither cut nor add revenue. Have you not been paying attention?
Click to expand...

Who's not paying attention?

In last night’s debate, Mitt Romney repeated the idea that he could pay for much or all of the 20 percent rate reduction and other tax cuts in his tax plan by capping itemized deductions at $25,000. He had previously suggested a $17,000 cap in an interview and, in the first debate, $25,000 or $50,000 caps—and possibly phasing deductions out entirely for high-income taxpayers. Capping deductions would raise revenue in a highly progressive way but how much revenue and how progressive depend on the cap.
Click to expand...

TaxVox » Blog Archive » How Much Revenue Would a Cap on Itemized Deductions Raise?
 
tres borrachos said:
I love when a Liberal does this. Half the time you're hating on the CEOs. Now all of a sudden they are worth paying attention to?
Click to expand...

I love when a Con suddenly says don't listen to CEOs. Aren't they job creators?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom