• 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!

Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike

Tettsuo

Compassion is Strength
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
3,748
Reaction score
2,752
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike - Bloomberg

House Speaker John Boehner called on the congressional debt-reduction supercommittee to lay the foundation for a tax-code overhaul that would reject rate increases and curb some tax breaks.
In a speech to the Economic Club of Washington today, the Ohio Republican said the 12-member panel should recommend $1.5 trillion in budget savings by focusing solely on cuts to federal spending and overhauling Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The panel should fashion “principles” for a later, broad rewrite of the tax code that include lowering tax rates for individuals and companies, he said.
Tax reform should deal with the whole tax code, both the personal side and the corporate side, and it should result in a code that is simpler and fairer to everyone,” Boehner said. “Tax increases, I think, are off the table, and I don’t think they’re a viable option for the joint committee.”
Boehner said the House will consider President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan, which includes cuts in payroll taxes, provides tax breaks for hiring by small businesses, and more spending for infrastructure. The speaker made clear he opposes much of it, calling instead for Republican ideas to boost job growth, such as reduced government regulation.
“The president’s proposals are a poor substitute for the pro-growth policies that are needed to remove barriers to job creation in America, the policies that are needed to put America back to work,” Boehner said. He called on Obama to direct his cabinet secretaries to temporarily halt all work “that gets in the way of private-sector job creation.”
Can someone explain how this is any different than what Republicans have been implementing since Reagan? A system that has only produced more deficits due a reduction of government revenue and the development of systemic problems due to a lack of reasonable regulations? If it didn't work then, why request we continue to try the same crap?
 
Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike - Bloomberg


Can someone explain how this is any different than what Republicans have been implementing since Reagan? A system that has only produced more deficits due a reduction of government revenue and the development of systemic problems due to a lack of reasonable regulations? If it didn't work then, why request we continue to try the same crap?

I guess they are following Obama's lead.

I completely agree with no new taxes for increased spending. If a program is enacted to cut spending (As boehner says his program does) I would support some increases to go towards debt.
 
If tax increases are off the table, republicans are not serious about fixing the deficit.
 
If tax increases are off the table, republicans are not serious about fixing the deficit.
agreed...we need spending cuts and tax increases if we are ever going to dig our way out of this mess.
 
If tax increases are off the table, republicans are not serious about fixing the deficit.

Allow me to help you further peel back the veneer; they are not.
 
Last edited:
Would love to get Boehner and Obama to answer me why they are not trying get a flat income tax and another one for business, with neither one getting any breaks or deductions.

I would also like to see a rollback in some of the ridiculous regulations causing problems and costing jobs and small business growth.
 
Would love to get Boehner and Obama to answer me why they are not trying get a flat income tax and another one for business, with neither one getting any breaks or deductions.

Why would we want a flat tax? The income tax is the only progressive tax in our system. It already is too flat to even offset the other taxes, which are all regressive at the top. That's why people at the very top pay low percentages than the middle class do. Besides, just about every economist in the world agrees progressive taxation is the way to go. Diminishing marginal utility of wealth. It would be hugely utility inefficient to have a flat tax. To maximize utility we should have a much, much, more progressive tax system.

I would also like to see a rollback in some of the ridiculous regulations causing problems and costing jobs and small business growth.

Honestly, I think that is mostly hype. Especially with regards to small businesses. I worked at a start up for years. I was the third employee, but we grew it to about 60 employees before they sold the company. We basically never ran into any regulatory hassles at all. We had to pay taxes, which meant hiring an accountant for a few days. One time we had to deal with a patent suit. To get a government contract we had to fill out some forms... That was about it. It's not the stifling thing the GOP would have you believe for small business. The companies regulation does impact are the huge corporations that want to push their costs on to the public through externalities like pollution or unsafe products or working conditions or whatnot that oppose regulations, not the small businesses. Small business is just more sympathetic, so that's what the GOP mentions in their slogans, but that isn't real, it's just their slogans.
 
Why would we want a flat tax? The income tax is the only progressive tax in our system. It already is too flat to even offset the other taxes, which are all regressive at the top.

Why? Because things would then be so much simplier. We could cut the IRS way back. Politicians would no longer be able to promise all these cuts for votes.

0-25,000 FLAT 2%
25-50,000 FLAT 12%
50-100,000 FLAT 15%
100-250,000 Flat 18%

Etc, Etc, Etc. (numbers only used for the example, I don't know what they would be exactly)

What is wrong with that?
 
Why? Because things would then be so much simplier. We could cut the IRS way back. Politicians would no longer be able to promise all these cuts for votes.

0-25,000 FLAT 2%
25-50,000 FLAT 12%
50-100,000 FLAT 15%
100-250,000 Flat 18%

Etc, Etc, Etc. (numbers only used for the example, I don't know what they would be exactly)

What is wrong with that?

lololol...ahh perry a much easier....HUGE TAX cut for the rich and a HUGE tax increase for the bottom half of america...
 
The right wing has had this nation speeding headlong in a roller coaster headed straight to hell for over thirty years now. The Boner is and his crew have decided that the tracks need to be greased so the arrival is faster and the fiery crash at the end is far more spectacular.
 
lololol...ahh perry a much easier....HUGE TAX cut for the rich and a HUGE tax increase for the bottom half of america...

Please explain.
 
Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike - Bloomberg

Can someone explain how this is any different than what Republicans have been implementing since Reagan? A system that has only produced more deficits due a reduction of government revenue

perhaps you can show me where we had a reduction of revenue?

thumb_480_hauser.gif


because I'm not seeing it.
 
If tax increases are off the table, republicans are not serious about fixing the deficit.

see chart above. tax rates do not directly determine revenue.
 
Why? Because things would then be so much simplier. We could cut the IRS way back. Politicians would no longer be able to promise all these cuts for votes.

0-25,000 FLAT 2%
25-50,000 FLAT 12%
50-100,000 FLAT 15%
100-250,000 Flat 18%

Etc, Etc, Etc. (numbers only used for the example, I don't know what they would be exactly)

What is wrong with that?

The only thing wrong with it is with politicians. If you took away the idea of loopholes, you take away half of what politicians promise.
 
The only thing wrong with it is with politicians. If you took away the idea of loopholes, you take away half of what politicians promise.

I noted that. Yes, that's the problem. Not that it wouldn't make things so much simplier. It wouldn't give politicians something to promise for votes. That's certainly not a reason to demand that we switch to something like this.
 
Why? Because things would then be so much simplier. We could cut the IRS way back. Politicians would no longer be able to promise all these cuts for votes.

0-25,000 FLAT 2%
25-50,000 FLAT 12%
50-100,000 FLAT 15%
100-250,000 Flat 18%

Etc, Etc, Etc. (numbers only used for the example, I don't know what they would be exactly)

What is wrong with that?

I would recommend a couple of changes:

- Put in this type of tax and then totally get rid of payroll taxes so we do not have the issue of who pays Federal taxes. Rates would have to be adjusted somewhat.

- Not sure if you would have any personal exclusions at all, if the answer is no then I would exclude the first 5K for an individual and 10K for a family.

- I would add a bracket for the Super rich. Something above the current 35%, let's say 50-60% with the bracket starting at $5 million. That should take away the argument that a flatter tax is a backdoor way to allow the wealthy to pay less.
 
see chart above. tax rates do not directly determine revenue.

It's an awfully big coincidence that your graph happens to stop right before the whole reaganomics house of cards came so obviously and devastatingly crashing down eh?

That's ridiculous. Obviously tax rates are a huge determinate of revenue. But the relationship is complex. When you tax the top of the spectrum heavily, and the bottom not enough, you get high consumer spending, low investment. That is bad for the economy. That's what we had under Carter and Reagan wisely adjusted it so that it was more balance. But people got caught up in the hype and made overly simplistic conclusions from that experience. They assumed that all cuts of taxes on the rich were therefore good for the economy. That, of course, is not true. Clinton and Bush2 both continued cutting taxes on the super rich to a much greater degree and we saw what happened. When you have higher taxes on the middle class and lower on the super rich you get high investment, so stock prices shoot up in the short term, but you don't have the consumer spending to back up those numbers, so the bubble bursts, as has happened twice in a row now. What we need to do is bring things back into balance. The data seems to indicate that the right balance was somewhere between the rates after Reagan's last cut and the rates after Clinton's second round of cuts. Probably rates around the level after Clinton's first cuts are about right.
 
Why? Because things would then be so much simplier. We could cut the IRS way back. Politicians would no longer be able to promise all these cuts for votes.

0-25,000 FLAT 2%
25-50,000 FLAT 12%
50-100,000 FLAT 15%
100-250,000 Flat 18%

Etc, Etc, Etc. (numbers only used for the example, I don't know what they would be exactly)

What is wrong with that?

What a flat tax means is that all income brackets pay the same percentage. What you're describing is a much lower, but still progressive, tax system.
 
I would recommend a couple of changes:

- Put in this type of tax and then totally get rid of payroll taxes so we do not have the issue of who pays Federal taxes. Rates would have to be adjusted somewhat.

- Not sure if you would have any personal exclusions at all, if the answer is no then I would exclude the first 5K for an individual and 10K for a family.

- I would add a bracket for the Super rich. Something above the current 35%, let's say 50-60% with the bracket starting at $5 million. That should take away the argument that a flatter tax is a backdoor way to allow the wealthy to pay less.

Obviously it isn't and as I've often times said, my numbers are just made up numbers to show how it would work. All you note are valid points to add.
 
What a flat tax means is that all income brackets pay the same percentage. What you're describing is a much lower, but still progressive, tax system.

What you are saying is you are unable to look beyond your preconcieved notions. Nowhere is anything written that says all brackets must pay the same FLAT rate.
 
What you are saying is you are unable to look beyond your preconcieved notions. Nowhere is anything written that says all brackets must pay the same FLAT rate.
No, teamosil is right. A flat tax is where all income brackets pay the same percentage. You wrote down a gradual tax system. Here's three sources where it is, in fact, written.

What is flat tax? definition and meaning
flat tax - definition of flat tax by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Flat Tax Definition
 
Last edited:
What you are saying is you are unable to look beyond your preconcieved notions. Nowhere is anything written that says all brackets must pay the same FLAT rate.

The definition of a flat tax is one where all income brackets pay the same percentage as theplaydrive showed above.

I suspect that what you mean is that you support progressive taxation with no deductions or loopholes. Right?
 
Last edited:
I could see some interesting compromises if people actually wanted to overhaul the tax system. For example, eliminate social security and medicare taxes and roll it into federal income tax. Eliminate corporate income tax, but also tax long term capital gains and dividends at ordinary tax rates. But while everyone is sitting at the table saying "No, X is OFF THE TABLE!" no real reform can occur.
 
Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike - Bloomberg

Can someone explain how this is any different than what Republicans have been implementing since Reagan? A system that has only produced more deficits due a reduction of government revenue and the development of systemic problems due to a lack of reasonable regulations? If it didn't work then, why request we continue to try the same crap?
Question is irrelevant. The true mystery is: does Boehner truly believe what he is saying, or is it merely political posturing? If the former, we should be very, very worried... for in that case the obvious goal of various Republican/Tea Party proposals are to subjugate the middle class to an economic slavery not seen since the early part of the 20th century... or earlier. Let's not forget that unfettered capitalism built this country on the backs of abused workers (slaves, coolies, children, women).

Given that, when some on the right say they want their country back, I wonder just how far back . . . .
 
Back
Top Bottom