Tom Cole: Join with President Obama on quick deal

Republican Rep. Tom Cole urged colleagues in a private session Tuesday to vote to extend the Bush tax rates for all but the highest earners before the end of the year — and to battle over the rest later.
The Oklahoma Republican said in an interview with POLITICO that he believes such a vote would not violate Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge and that he’s not alone within Republican circles.

Click to expand...

A voice of sanity from the GOP, and that voice represents the pragmatic certainty that Republicans are either going to have to compromise or take the blame for a deal not being reached. The concept is simple. After this year, a tax cut, even one that doesn't cut taxes for billionaires, is still a tax cut. And, after the Bush tax cuts expire, any new proposal to bring them back, even if only for those making less than 250K, is still a tax cut. Logically, Tom Cole is saying cut taxes on the middle class, then wage the war for tax cuts for billionaires later. It makes sense, which is why I believe that the extension of Bush tax cuts for those making under 250K is going to pass, but not until January. It won't be a tax cut until then. It will be raising taxes, which the Democrats don't want to be saddled with. Yea, Democrats are playing their silly games too, but they are in a better position to be playing games. Doesn't make it right. It's just that they are in a better position.

Article is here.

People are elected to represent their constituents, not Grover Norquist. They should do what they think is in the best interest of their district/state. I personally believe that a long-term solution is needed and taking short-term deals will never get it done.

my guess is that they'll fight raising the top rate tooth and nail, and who knows if it will even happen.

taxing investment income as income above a certain cap seems a potential option.

Helix said:

my guess is that they'll fight raising the top rate tooth and nail, and who knows if it will even happen.

taxing investment income as income above a certain cap seems a potential option.

Click to expand...

Which actually speaks more to tax fairness. Warren Buffet pays a lesser tax rate than his secretary because the greatest portion of his income is capital gains.

Gina said:

Which actually speaks more to tax fairness. Warren Buffet pays a lesser tax rate than his secretary because the greatest portion of his income is capital gains.

Click to expand...

yep. i'd be curious to see how potentially taxing investment income as income compares with the revenue we would bring in by raising 35 percent to 39 percent in the top bracket.

Helix said:

yep. i'd be curious to see how potentially taxing investment income as income compares with the revenue we would bring in by raising 35 percent to 39 percent in the top bracket.

Click to expand...

I would be interested as well. I think, going on some discussions I've read and heard on the subject, it could be substantially more.

Capital gains rates during the 90's was 25%? I may be wrong, but in any case it was higher and we did just fine. I believe it was lowered to the current rate in 2003. Again, check me on that.

Gina said:

I would be interested as well. I think, going on some discussions I've read and heard on the subject, it could be substantially more.

Capital gains rates during the 90's was 25%? I may be wrong, but in any case it was higher and we did just fine. I believe it was lowered to the current rate in 2003. Again, check me on that.

Click to expand...

more info here :

Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

my gut feeling is that we could probably drop the gains rate on earnings under the cap and still come out much better if everything above the cap was taxed progressively.

Ohhhh, now that would generate revenue. I could go for that and then leave marginal tax rates as they are for top earners?

There should be a tax levied upon all immigrants that enter a civilized, formerly prosperous country such as the United States, in which all of the infrastructure, institutions and systems that they and their families will be using, has already been built and paid for by others.

This would benefit the immigrants by giving them an actual interest in their new country and the prosperity thereof.

There should also be a huge tax on the amount of money that immigrants can earn here and then take out of the American economy by sending that money out of the country to their relatives in other countries where it is then spent.

Everyone needs to have a personal stake in the country and it's become obvious that it doesn't happen voluntarily.

It seems upside down to simply allow immigrants to come to America and start criticizing how those who built this country are taxed in order to obtain more government services for themselves.

Ray410 said:

There should be a tax levied upon all immigrants that enter a civilized, formerly prosperous country such as the United States, in which all of the infrastructure, institutions and systems that they and their families will be using, has already been built and paid for by others.

This would benefit the immigrants by giving them an actual interest in their new country and the prosperity thereof.

There should also be a huge tax on the amount of money that immigrants can earn here and then take out of the American economy by sending that money out of the country to their relatives in other countries where it is then spent.

Everyone needs to have a personal stake in the country and it's become obvious that it doesn't happen voluntarily.

It seems upside down to simply allow immigrants to come to America and start criticizing how those who built this country are taxed in order to obtain more government services for themselves.

Click to expand...

Giving immigrants a path to citizenship, by having a military service requirement would work for me. If you do something for America, America then does something for you.

In Related News: Do You Live In A Death Spiral State? - Forbes

Ray410 said:

There should be a tax levied upon all immigrants that enter a civilized, formerly prosperous country such as the United States, in which all of the infrastructure, institutions and systems that they and their families will be using, has already been built and paid for by others.

This would benefit the immigrants by giving them an actual interest in their new country and the prosperity thereof.

There should also be a huge tax on the amount of money that immigrants can earn here and then take out of the American economy by sending that money out of the country to their relatives in other countries where it is then spent.

Everyone needs to have a personal stake in the country and it's become obvious that it doesn't happen voluntarily.

It seems upside down to simply allow immigrants to come to America and start criticizing how those who built this country are taxed in order to obtain more government services for themselves.

Click to expand...

And, what, people born here somehow earned all those benefits just for the sake of being born here?

Gina said:

I would be interested as well. I think, going on some discussions I've read and heard on the subject, it could be substantially more.

Capital gains rates during the 90's was 25%? I may be wrong, but in any case it was higher and we did just fine. I believe it was lowered to the current rate in 2003. Again, check me on that.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Higher taxes in a boom period (the dot com bubble) and raising taxes to that level as we teeter on going back into a recession is just not using your brain at all. THINK Gina.