Re: SOTU Address:
For your convenience:
To your point, your implication was that Republicans when ‘in power’ did nothing to address corporate taxes to which I provided evidence that countered your implication. Yes, it did further complicate the current tax code…but consider the President in the SOTU declared a goal to simplify the tax code including reducing loopholes (which again he had a DC majority in ’08-’10) and has yet to do…and also which is what Romney ran on and POTUS and his minions attacked him on, specifically on his ‘non-specifics’ which POTUS is currently precisely guilty of…hypocrisy anyone?
Again, you stated that Democrats jacked up corporate taxes to the highest rate in the world, I countered that the GOP did nothing to change this. You responded with a link to a corporate tax giveaway during the Bush administration which did not change America's status of having the highest corporate taxes in the world, but actually increased complexity.
Clearly you believe that the corporate tax giveaway represents action on the part of the GOP to reduce corporate taxes, I argue that this is not the case, but rather it was specified targeted giveaways that only a small number of companies could take advantage of.
I understand your point, I am hopeful that you understand mine. Beyond that, there is not to much to say, either you can acknowledge that I am accurately describing the situation, or not.
As to your charges of hypocrisy on the part of the President with respect to the fact that he has both recommended simplifying the corporate tax code, eliminating deductions, and reducing the rate, and during the Presidential campaign derided Governor Romney for recommending the same strategy for individual income taxes on the highest earners.
You are correct that this happened, you are incorrect on the assertion that this represented hypocrisy.
Here is why. Romneys income tax plan, with respect to the highest earners, was claimed by Romney to be revenue neutral for the highest earners. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."
However, he intended a 20% rate cut offset by limiting deductions. Deductions only added up to 20% of proposed rate cuts for the highest earners even if they were eliminated 100%, therefore the math states that his plan would have been a 16% tax cut for the highest earners and not remotely revenue neutral. Pointing this error in arithmetic is not hypcrisy, it is simple arithmetic.
Corporate taxes do include massive deductions that could offset rate reductions to 28% and be revenue neutral.
So these two things that you wish to call equivelant are not.
Do you understand?