• 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!

Key republican bolts from debt ceiling talks

My problem with the Republican is they are far more interested in getting their ideas across. They want to cut spending by a substantial amount of money which may be very unpopular with the Democrats, but they are not going to compromise as far as the wealthy tax cut is concerned.

That's right. There's no doubt the highest tax bracket should go back up, but that's not even the point of this discussion. They won't agree to cut subsidies or loopholes.
 
Will taxing industry reduce unemployment?

It's not taxing industry. It's getting rid of subsidies and loopholes, which are something that a real fiscal conservative would be opposed to - because in reality that's picking winners and losers. Subsidize one corporation but let the other out in the dust - leave them all to do what they need to do without government aid, and without getting gigantic tax receipts from Uncle Sam and not paying anything.

Eliminating a tax subsidy isn't raising taxes. Think of it like this...

You have the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. In both cases, only those taxpayers who have dependent children who pay a certain percentage of their income to someone else to help provide care for that child (or children; i.e., "daycare") earn the credit. If you don't have qualified children, you can't claim the credit. Tax subsidies work almost the same way except they apply to business expenditures that under the tax code can be applied to your business' federal tax return, i.e., health care premiums paid by your employer. Such an expense is refunded under tax law, but it's not an increase in the marginal tax rate. It's just an expense that isn't counted as taxable income. Therefore, if the subsidy is eliminated, those formerly non-taxed earnings that would have otherwise been written off in a tax haven, i.e., insurance premiums paid, are instead counted as income where they've always been except now you can't claim the tax write-off.

Will it move said business into a higher tax bracket? Yes, because the business won't be able to claim the tax write-off any longer. Thus, their "real" earnings will have to be properly reported without the adjustment to gross income.

Have your taxes been raised? No, because the marginal tax rate you would have been paying had you not claimed the subsidy remains at the exact same level.

Is it a new tax? No.
 
Not willing to compromise, i.e. actually cut subsides while not touching the marginal rate that the repubs are calling "tax hikes" is going to bite them in the ass. Dems have compromised already, they gave up spending 2tillion for 10years.
 
Exactly... democrats have taken a gigantic hit in this, and we control more of the government than they do, and they won't take anything. It's laughable.
 
Psst...hey, guess what? We don't actually want the debt ceiling raised! At all!

Or at least, I don't.

Then you want us to default on debt, sell off the national parks, cut 1000s of jobs, etc.

Okay, then cut subsidies and loopholes.

Don't raise taxes.

I don't know why anyone would want to raise taxes especially considering we are hovering on a double dip recession. These FDR policies are going to keep us in a muck for a while.

This raises the amount of taxes paid which is in essence a tax increase.

Tax cuts pay for themselves

1) The laffer curve is 90% 9made up state) bull****. There is a point where taxes become counterproductive; however, America as a whole has never been at that point
2) If the Laffer curve is true, even to a certain extent, than so is its inverse meaning that without a certain amount of revenue, even basic government services become useless.
3) Cain is corporatist, he'd raise the debt ceiling.

This is why you fail.

Reagan, tax cuts produced immediate tax revenue gains, so did the JFK and GWB Tax Cuts.

But, don't let that stop you, keep saying tax cuts take 25 years to pay for themselves!

Misinformed. Taxes actually went up during Reagan. He cut loopholes and the marginal rate; however, the net result was an increase in taxes that was also more equitable.

Why would one want to raise taxes? Cause there's no such thing as a free lunch. Eventually we have to pay for what we're spending. Time to cowboy up and pay the tab.

This. If we don't do it now, its going to have to happen in 10years and when it happens then well just look at Greece, only instead of France and Germany calling the shots it will be China.

Time to spend less.

Time to do BOTH
 
Technically, depends on how they are done.

That's exactly right. Some folks think that deductions and loopholes are necessarily the same thing.

Speaking for myself, I can't afford to pay taxes on money I don't have anymore; anymore than I already am, that is.
 
Eliminating a tax subsidy isn't raising taxes. Think of it like this...

You have the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. In both cases, only those taxpayers who have dependent children who pay a certain percentage of their income to someone else to help provide care for that child (or children; i.e., "daycare") earn the credit. If you don't have qualified children, you can't claim the credit. Tax subsidies work almost the same way except they apply to business expenditures that under the tax code can be applied to your business' federal tax return, i.e., health care premiums paid by your employer. Such an expense is refunded under tax law, but it's not an increase in the marginal tax rate. It's just an expense that isn't counted as taxable income. Therefore, if the subsidy is eliminated, those formerly non-taxed earnings that would have otherwise been written off in a tax haven, i.e., insurance premiums paid, are instead counted as income where they've always been except now you can't claim the tax write-off.

Will it move said business into a higher tax bracket? Yes, because the business won't be able to claim the tax write-off any longer. Thus, their "real" earnings will have to be properly reported without the adjustment to gross income.

Have your taxes been raised? No, because the marginal tax rate you would have been paying had you not claimed the subsidy remains at the exact same level.

Is it a new tax? No.

Call it what you want, but the end result is people/businesses will be paying more taxes. I can't afford to pay more taxes right now.
 
Misinformed. Taxes actually went up during Reagan. He cut loopholes and the marginal rate; however, the net result was an increase in taxes that was also more equitable.

I think what would shock most Conservatives is the fact that Reagan actually used a varied form of Keynesian economics to implement his budget plan about the time he did raise taxes. Most Conservatives will deny it, but it's true.

(Also see this article, "Ronald Reagan's Accidental Keynesian Stimulus: Echoes")
 
Call it what you want, but the end result is people/businesses will be paying more taxes. I can't afford to pay more taxes right now.

Who can except those who have continued to profit during this recession? This is why I've said time and again, tax those who can afford to pay alittle bit more - the wealthiest among us. I'm not saying increase their taxes to some absurd rate; a 2-5% marginal tax rate increase won't hurt the wealthy one bit. Nonetheless, in the case of eliminating tax subsidies for profitable business entities, i.e., big oil, if you're going to claim that ethanol companies have been profitable and, thus, no longer need a federal tax subsidy, big oil companies should be held to the exact same standard because as we all know they've made huge profits for years and in some cases don't pay ANY federal income taxes whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Who can except those who have continued to profit during this recession? This is why I've said time and again, tax those who can afford to pay alittle bit more - the wealthiest among us. I'm not saying increase their taxes to some absurd rate; a 2-5% marginal tax rate increase won't hurt the wealthy one bit. Nonetheless, in the case of eliminating tax subsidies for profitable business entities, i.e., big oil, if you're going to claim that ethanol companies have been profitable and, thus, no longer need a federal tax subsidy...

I've profited during this depression, even since Obama banned drilling. However, my profit is half what it was a few years ago. So now, you say that instead of paying 15% on 40 grand, I have to pay 17-20%?

Do the math, dude. You'll see that what you're suggesting will put many-a-small business owner below the poverty level.

Common sense really needs to take hold among the ranks of the Left, at some point.

big oil companies should be held to the exact same standard because as we all know they've made huge profits for years and in some cases don't pay ANY federal income taxes whatsoever.

We know? You can prove that?
 
I've profited during this depression, even since Obama banned drilling. However, my profit is half what it was a few years ago. So now, you say that instead of paying 15% on 40 grand, I have to pay 17-20%?

Do the math, dude. You'll see that what you're suggesting will put many-a-small business owner below the poverty level.

Common sense really needs to take hold among the ranks of the Left, at some point.

Your business only makes 40k/year? Is that how much you take home and how much is left after operating cost? Then your business is not profitable.
 
Last edited:
It's not taxing industry. It's getting rid of subsidies and loopholes, which are something that a real fiscal conservative would be opposed to - because in reality that's picking winners and losers. Subsidize one corporation but let the other out in the dust - leave them all to do what they need to do without government aid, and without getting gigantic tax receipts from Uncle Sam and not paying anything.

I bet it would be interesting to look at the make-up of the Congresses and the Executive that passed and signed bills that began each subsidy and loophole. My guess is that both parties were involved in many and the Dems in the others.

As for a conservative opposed to ending subsidies and loopholes, you are wrong. I have stated here previously that I would end all subsidies and loopholes to all companies. Of course, I would end all taxation of companies too, but that's a different story.

Since the 1930s, the Dems have grown entitlement programs to where they make up a large percentage of the budget. Republicans have opposed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and most of the other entitlement programs. It is the Dems who have spent and spent. Yes, Republicans have too, but in comparison to he Dems, they are mere pikers. Due to the condition of the economy, it is not time to raise taxes. It is time to cut the spending.

Once the budget is under better control and when the economy is growing at a consistent and decent rate, then let's look at the tax structure and make significant changes to it and make it simple.
 
Your business only makes 40k/year? Is that how much you take home and how much is left after operating cost? Then your business is not profitable.

Not profitable? How do you figger that? I made a 20% profit in 2010; that's above the national average. So, where are you coming from, exactly?

And, no, my business doesn't make 40 g's a year. Wait, let me rephrase that: my business didn't only make 40 g's a year...before the Libbos took over the government and ****ed everything up.
 
Last edited:
Not profitable? How do you figger that? I made a 20% profit in 2010; that's above the national average. So, where are you coming from, exactly?

And, no, my business doesn't make 40 g's a year. Wait, let me rephrase that: my business didn't only make 40 g's a year...before the Libbos took over the government and ****ed everything up.

Re-read what I asked. If you take all your profit as income, and your income is only 40k a year, which your statements lead me to believe, than your business is not profitable because you aren't including your income in the equation. If I misread your statements, then I'm wrong. Please clarify how much your business makes and how much you make.
 
Tax cuts pay for themselves

No, they don't. That has been fantasy from day one, and continues to be fantasy. Even if it were the case, it would have diminishing returns... once tax rates get low, going lower has a lesser effect than lowering tax rates when they were high. Case in point, lowering interest rates, which once could be used to stimulate the economy, but now have no effect on economic growth.

Income tax rates under GW Bush led to less revenue from income taxes. This was masked by the fact that revenue derived from payroll taxes increased. The government has been subtly shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class by increasingly relying on payroll taxes to provide tax revenues.

It is time for hefty income tax rate increases on the highest of incomes. Tax policies of the previous 30 years have done nothing but bifurcate American into the haves and have nots. Without a vibrant middle class, we do not have a strong economy. Until Washington begins to favor the middle class, we will remain in a world of hurt.
 

Attachments

  • Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 32
Re-read what I asked. If you take all your profit as income, and your income is only 40k a year, which your statements lead me to believe, than your business is not profitable because you aren't including your income in the equation. If I misread your statements, then I'm wrong. Please clarify how much your business makes and how much you make.

This year, me and my company made 40 grand in profit, after deductions. And, you want me to pay more?

yeah! That's going to encourage small business growth.

BTW, what was your tax bill for 2010?
 
This year, me and my company made 40 grand in profit, after deductions. And, you want me to pay more?

yeah! That's going to encourage small business growth.

BTW, what was your tax bill for 2010?

Yes. No company deserves a subsidy.
 

that's a very revealing article, there are several direct quotes from treas secty geithner, tax cheat in charge of the irs, that lay out the extreme statist perspective assumed by the leaders of this white house

under aggressive questioning from renee ellmers, freshman from north carolina, small biz cmte, geithner testified, "only 3% of your small businesses" will be effected by his proposal to raise taxes on the rich, that "modest change in revenue" of some 3/4 of a tril

failing to raise income taxes, he explains, is tantamount to govt "financing a tax benefit" to upper earners

income taxes simply must be raised, continues the treas secty, else we must "shrink the overall size of govt programs"

yes, mr secty, if you don't shrink overall size of govt, you're gonna have to raise taxes on the very americans the rest of us look to to create jobs---in the midst of our collective depression

it's obama's ball, it's really always been obama's ball

he's gonna have to come out in the spotlight, like geithner, for tax increases---on income

of course, 6 months ago in LAME DUCK the party's position, tho petulant, was plain:

Obama signs tax deal into law - CNN

of course, what can you expect from a president whose only scoreable budget in going on now 3 years was defeated by the senate HIS PARTY CONTROLS, ninety seven to zero

the president's lack of leadership relative to the deficit has been disgraceful, #3 in house leadership says obama doesn't have time

our fiscal outlook is fatal

there are plainly 2 models before us---the directions pointed to and taken by governors cuomo and brown and christie in NY, CA and NJ, on the one hand

or the road taken by greece, on the other

which way will washington wend?
 
Last edited:
andrew cuomo on the need for his state to become "business friendly:"

GOVERNOR ANDREW M. CUOMO STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

"we have the worst business tax climate in the nation, period, our taxes are 66% higher than the national average"

"the costs of pensions are exploding... a 476% increase and its only getting worse"

"the state of new york spends too much money, it is that blunt and it is that simple"

"an unsustainable rate of growth and it has been for a long time"

"not only do we spend too much, but we get too little in return"

"the large government we have is all too often responsive to the special interests over the people"

"new yorkers are voting with their feet, two million new yorkers have left the state over the past decade"

"what does this say, it says we need radical reform, it says we need a new approach, we need a new perspective and we need it now"

"this is a fundamental realignment for the state"

"the old way wasn't working anyway, let's be honest"

"we want a government that puts the people first and not the special interests first"

"what made new york the empire state was a not a large government complex, it was a vibrant private sector that was creating great jobs"

"and that's what's going to make us the empire state again"

"at the heart of this state is business"

"we have to relearn the lesson our founders knew and we have to put up a sign that says new york is open for business, we get it, and this is going to be a business friendly state"

"we are going to have to confront the tax situation in our state, property taxes in this state are killing new yorkers, thirteen of the sixteen highest tax counties are in new york when assessed by home value"

"westchester county has the highest property taxes in the united states, nassau county has the second highest"

"it has to end, it has to end this year"

"we have to hold the line on taxes for now and reduce taxes in the future, new york has no future as the tax capital of the nation, our young people will not stay, our business will not come"

"put it simply, the people of this state simply cannot afford to pay any more taxes, period"

"we have to start with an emergency financial plan to stabilize our finances, we need to hold the line and we need to institute a wage freeze in the state of new york, we need to hold the line on taxes, we need a state spending cap and we need to close this $10 billion gap without any borrowing"

and in new york it aint just rhetoric:

Cuomo budget: $10 billion deficit cut, no new taxes, layoffs likely

leadership, anyone?
 
You don't even know New York prof. The amount of **** we have in our government and ridiculous departments all over the place is insane. Our taxes here are already ridiculously high and raising them will not pay for David Patterson's bull****. We have state agents driving around in boats and searching people for fish. Our DEC budget is over 1 billion dollars alone. They also carry weapons. It's insane. I got pulled over by one once and they asked to see my fish and I showed them my ICE badge and they took off in their gigantic twin 350 boat like babies. By the way it was 4 of them on one boat.
 
Last edited:
That's right cpwill. That's not the discussion. No one is attempting to raise rates. They are refusing to do exactly what you are FOR.

no, because simply stripping them out merely raises effective tax rates, just without raising nominal ones to give themselves political cover. All of the economic damage of a tax hike, but with less of the danger of being labeled a tax-hiker as we go into an election season. I want to squeeze out all those extra costs without raising effective tax rates.


quick and easy example.


Bob makes 50,000, and his nominal tax rate is 25% (I know it's not, but I like easy numbers and it's an example, work with me here :)). This would leave him paying $12,500 in taxes. Except that Bob has kids, greens his house, gives some to charity, so on and so forth, and so after all the deductions are made, he gets a check back for $4,500. Bob's effective tax rate - what he actually sends to the government is $8,000, or 16%. That's his real tax rate, not the nominal 25% marker. If you were to strip out all of the deductions and credits Bob gets, you would be increasing his actual tax rate by 9%. Hiking taxes like that on the populace in the middle of an already anemic recovery is a very, very, Bad Idea, and it's one that is exceedingly unlikely to actually get us any extra revenue (but rather the opposite).

You see, tax revenue isn't actually a function of tax rates; it's a function of GDP:

hauser.gif


now, it's worth noting that that line has recently dipped - we increased the size of government from about 20% of GDP to about 24.5% of GDP... and revenue fell from 19.5% of GDP to 15% of GDP..... government, you see, is not in the habit of taxing itself the same as it does for work, production, or investment, and so as government increases, taxes as a percent of GDP decreases.

If you want to boost revenues relative to government spending, therefore, you have to sharply reduce government spending and spur growth in GDP. Now, the above example with Bob had some hidden costs that we didn't discuss. He had to go to the effort and expense of greening his house just enough to get the credit. He had to maintain all the paperwork, he probably had to use a tax service to get it all put in the system and to make sure he could "maximize his return". These are called "compliance costs", and under our current tax structure, they are huge. We are talking $431 BILLION. That's the money that we Americans spend before the Treasury ever see's a single dime - that's how much it costs us just to figure out how to work our own tax code. The Laffer Center has estimated that you could increase GDP by fully half a percent annually, compounding, if you could cut complexity in half. I would argue that this is an underestimate because they are only accounting for saved costs, and not increased investment that would come with such an improvement. In addition, the Republican provision strips out much more than that. However, let's not add on too much, and let's only suggest that a massive in-flooding of investment and a radically simplified tax structure will only produce (say) 0.65 of a point of added GDP each year. That's low-balling, but that's okay. GDP in 2010 was about $14.7 Trillion, and we are probably going to add around 2.3% to that for this year. So let's make a couple of happy assumptions and state that as of 2012 we were able to bring down state spending to the point where we matched historical revenue returns of around 19%, and that GDP without any alteration would grow at 3% annually after that. So if we compare 3 to 3.65% rates of growth starting in 2012....

in ten years we will have collected over $1.2 Trillion in extra revenue.... while boosting economic growth (instead of dragging it, which you see with tax hikes). Assuming a populace of 310 million, GDP per capita will be increased by $4,233; that''s more than 4 grand extra for every man, woman, and child, per year, increasing. And we're not counting the second order growth that will come from increased employment, wage growth, so on, and so forth.

That's the Republican solution: Increase growth without raising real tax rates so as to provide jobs and increase revenue. The Democrat solution thus far seems to be to raise real tax rates and hope that producers and investors don't notice and change their behavior accordingly.

And many times. Someone posted all of it in this thread. Obama has publicly admitted.

I've seen him agree to take $500 Bn out in general to pay for his brand new entitlement, and I've seen him promise that the IPAB will be able to reduce costs.... somehow.... in a manner not to be mentioned before the election... But I haven't seen Obama agree to Medicare reform in the debt ceiling deal; and Google is giving me nothing. Frankly I find such a move exceedingly unlikely, as the President has already made it clear he intends to make MediScare the centerpiece of his 2012 campaign. Perhaps you could provide me with some specifics.
 
Your argument can be an attack at someone who just wants to get rid of loopholes, but I want to lower the whole code and simplify it. We haven't seen a comprehensive medicare reform from Obama yet because it's still in deliberation. He has admitted publicly it needs to be cut, though he probably didn't use the word cut.
 
Back
Top Bottom