• 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!

Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

Conservative said:
The only way the Republicans could get the tax cuts through was with a sunset. They wanted a permanent reduction but the Democrats wouldn't let that through so wha tis your point? A filibuster would have occurred without the sunset and that is what you are ignoring.
Click to expand...

and both of you are still confused equating the tactics of the Republicans today with the Democrats in 2001. Sadly, the Dems were not nearly as cold, calculating, ruthless and self serving in 2001 as the GOP is today. Cheaney broke the tie in 2003 for round two.

This is a perfect illustration of just how bad the GOP has made things in the Senate today with their hyper partisanship and their insistence on 60 for everything.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170

But yet again you are getting bogged down in votes and historical details. The point is a clear one: the tax raise going into effect in a few weeks was part of the bill passed by the 107th Congress when republican George Bush was President, the GOP held the House, and there was a tie in the Senate but with a Republican VP available to break any tie.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
political pragmatism? I guess that is one way of hiding behind their words and not acting.

why didn't you dems claim that those Bush rates for the middle class were useful in 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09?
Click to expand...

The Democrats probably didn't talk much about them because they agreed that they were helpful to the middle-class. Generally you don't see a lot of political debate on points that everyone agrees on. :confused:

TurtleDude said:
I love your attitude towards the rich--nothing screams LOSER louder
Click to expand...

Actually I have nothing against the rich; I'm doing pretty well myself. I mainly just have a problem with obnoxious douchebags who constantly brag about their wealth, then whine about how horrible America treats the wealthy.
 
haymarket said:
and both of you are still confused equating the tactics of the Republicans today with the Democrats in 2001. Sadly, the Dems were not nearly as cold, calculating, ruthless and self serving in 2001 as the GOP is today. Cheaney broke the tie in 2003 for round two.

This is a perfect illustration of just how bad the GOP has made things in the Senate today with their hyper partisanship and their insistence on 60 for everything.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

But yet again you are getting bogged down in votes and historical details. The point is a clear one: the tax raise going into effect in a few weeks was part of the bill passed by the 107th Congress when republican George Bush was President, the GOP held the House, and there was a tie in the Senate but with a Republican VP available to break any tie.
Click to expand...

A good civics class will teach you how a bill gets to the floor for a vote. In the Senate it requires 60 votes for cloture. Look up the term and definition. The final vote once cloture happens is a simple majority.
 
Kandahar said:
The Democrats probably didn't talk much about them because they agreed that they were helpful to the middle-class. Generally you don't see a lot of political debate on points that everyone agrees on. :confused:



Actually I have nothing against the rich; I'm doing pretty well myself. I mainly just have a problem with obnoxious douchebags who constantly brag about their wealth, then whine about how horrible America treats the wealthy.
Click to expand...

There is only one ideology today that doesn't care about what someone else makes or pays in taxes, and that would be the conservative ideology. What we have here is a principle at play that should concern everyone and that is the desire of politicians to classify someone keeping more of their personal income as an expense to the govt? What is more disturbing are the millions that bought this rhetoric. This country wasn't built on those principles and the radical leftists are trying to gain hold of this country's economy.
 
Conservative said:
A good civics class will teach you how a bill gets to the floor for a vote. In the Senate it requires 60 votes for cloture. Look up the term and definition. The final vote once cloture happens is a simple majority.
Click to expand...

You are being intentionally obtuse.

The hyperpartisan climate of today and the GOP tactics of today WERE NOT the everyday rule a decade ago and were used only sparingly compared to today. Again, only 58 votes were cast in favor of the resolution in 2001. Today, that would have killed it dead under GOP fanaticism and obstructionism.

A simple majority ALWAYS can bring a bill to the floor UNLESS it is filibustered then needing the 60 votes.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You are being intentionally obtuse.

The hyperpartisan climate of today and the GOP tactics of today WERE NOT the everyday rule a decade ago and were used only sparingly compared to today. Again, only 58 votes were cast in favor of the resolution in 2001. Today, that would have killed it dead under GOP fanaticism and obstructionism.

A simple majority ALWAYS can bring a bill to the floor UNLESS it is filibustered.
Click to expand...

Give me a break, you don't think Pelosi and Reid have added to the hyperpartisanship since they have been in charge since 2007. Hyperpartianship has been in place for decades but you obviously have been blinded by an ideology. Now all of a sudden the Republicans take over the House, add seats in the Senate, and take over 680 state legislative positions and now you want non partisanship? A simple majority can only bring a bill to the floor in the House, the Senate requires 60 votes. Your youth is showing.
 
http://rules.house.gov/archives/proc_diff_h_and_s.htm




Bringing Bills to the Floor In the House of Representatives, most major legislation is brought to the floor by the House's adoption of a special rule, which takes the form of a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules. Special rules set guidelines for floor consideration of measures, measures in violation of standing House rules, or measures requiring a special debate or amendment structure. Special rules allow the House leadership to establish legislative priorities. If such special rules were not used, the House would have to consider bills in the order that they were reported from committee Special rules are requested by a letter from the Chairman of the reporting committee to the Chairman of the Rules Committee. The House must adopt, by simple majority, a special rule which specifies how the bill will be considered before it can actually consider the underlying bill. Once adopted, the rule may govern the amount of general debate time, amendments permitted to the underlying bill, or waive points of order against the bill or amendments to that bill. In the Senate, there is no Rules Committee to perform this function. Legislation reported from a committee is placed on the Senate Calendar as a "General Order", which the Senate must then agree to take up. The motion to take up a measure is debatable after the first two hours of any legislative day. As a result, controversial legislation is often subject to a filibuster before it is even considered (see below).
Click to expand...

Please note that the words in bold refer to OFTEN SUBJECT TO A FILIBUSTER and not the word ALWAYS. That is then where the 60 votes come up.

But yet again you are getting bogged down in votes and historical details. The point is a clear one: the tax raise going into effect in a few weeks was part of the bill passed by the 107th Congress when republican George Bush was President, the GOP held the House, and there was a tie in the Senate but with a Republican VP available to break any tie.

Arguing about Senate procedures is a red herring that changes nothing about who passed these tax increases in the first place. That is not and never was my point.

Conservative - why are you so intent and deflecting the conversation from that fact?
 
Last edited:
Argument and counter-argument...

Do tax cuts cost...yes or no?

People work to earn an income. Under state and/or federal constitutional authority or by state law, your income is taxed. These taxes provide a source of revenue for state and federal governments. Now, tax cuts are suppose to allow the wage earner to retain more of their income - keep more of what you earn. Regardless of the nature of the economy, generally speaking this is true. However, what tends to happen during a recession or when the government is running a budget deficit is tax cuts reduce the government's revenue. Reduced revenues along with increased state/federal spending equates to debt.

Now, I understand the call for spending cuts, towit, if you're running a deficit the best way to reduce the debt is to reduce the amount of funds given to specific government programs or eliminate them completely. It's clear that in hard economic times, however, very few governing bodies are willing to cut programs they believe are necessary to provide aid to those individuals who are suffering economically. So, since the onset of the October 2008 recession where the deficit was already extremely high, our government had to act quickly in an attempt to inject capital into the economy otherwise face going into a depression. They (the Obama Administration) determined that the best way to do this was via public-private partnerships (meaning government contracts to private businesses) or via providing funds to the States for infrastructor projects. Corporate America - the private sector - could not correct itself because it (our financial sectors) were the problem (i.e., bad mortgage lending, over-extended credit, too much financial risk). That brings us up to today...

Conservatives are tic'd because they consider allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire to be a "tax hike". But as we all know these taxes were due to expire at the end of the year, thereby resetting them back to where they were originally prior to 2003 (which was the second tax reduction authorized by former Pres. G. W. Bush). Compounding their anger is the fact that many entitlement programs, i.e,. unemployment benefits, are being authorized in a downed economy. As such, the combination of tax cuts on top of entitlements are adding to the deficit. How? Because the tax cuts are no longer offset by revenues that taxation without deficit spending would have ordinarily generated. As such, our government has to borrow money in order to make up the difference.

So, yes, where ordinarily tax cuts would not cost the government a penny in spending when the economy is up, they do cost the government when the economy is down. Even if you cut spending in a down economy and still had tax cuts, if the government is running a deficit, eventually they'd have a significant reduction in revenues to work from which is exactly the case we find ourselves in today. To learn more on this matter, read this detailed review from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Uhh are you looking at the same bill that I'm looking at? The Democrats supported 99% of it? What in God's name are you talking about? The bill was a massive extension of the Bush tax cuts and a lower estate tax, and in exchange the Democrats got...an extension of unemployment benefits. Whoa. I'm so impressed. What an awesome deal. Yeah, I have no idea why Democrats would be opposed to that. :roll:
Click to expand...

Hey, it was some lib who said Republican's got 99% of what they wanted. I was just playing their game. The only thing dems were giving up was tax cuts for the wealthy and a compromise on the death tax.
 
Barbbtx said:
Hey, it was some lib who said Republican's got 99% of what they wanted. I was just playing their game. The only thing dems were giving up was tax cuts for the wealthy and a compromise on the death tax.
Click to expand...

That's a lot bigger than an extension of unemployment benefits, both in terms of dollars and in terms of politics. Tax cuts for the wealthy are basically the central plank of the Republican platform. Furthermore, extending them now increases the likelihood that they will be made permanent in 2012, and it makes Obama invested in defending the Republican position for the next two years. An extension of unemployment benefits, while modestly important for the short-term economic recovery, is not going to get most Democrats worked up. It almost certainly will not be extended again, and it's certainly not worth the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts.
 
haymarket said:
COMMITTEE ON RULES -



Please note that the words in bold refer to OFTEN SUBJECT TO A FILIBUSTER and not the word ALWAYS. That is then where the 60 votes come up.

But yet again you are getting bogged down in votes and historical details. The point is a clear one: the tax raise going into effect in a few weeks was part of the bill passed by the 107th Congress when republican George Bush was President, the GOP held the House, and there was a tie in the Senate but with a Republican VP available to break any tie.

Arguing about Senate procedures is a red herring that changes nothing about who passed these tax increases in the first place. That is not and never was my point.

Conservative - why are you so intent and deflecting the conversation from that fact?
Click to expand...

Do you even know what you posted? Read it again, cloture prevents a filibuster and you need 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. No bill can go to the floor of the Senate without cloture. Do you understand yet?
 
Objective Voice said:
Argument and counter-argument...

Do tax cuts cost...yes or no?

People work to earn an income. Under state and/or federal constitutional authority or by state law, your income is taxed. These taxes provide a source of revenue for state and federal governments. Now, tax cuts are suppose to allow the wage earner to retain more of their income - keep more of what you earn. Regardless of the nature of the economy, generally speaking this is true. However, what tends to happen during a recession or when the government is running a budget deficit is tax cuts reduce the government's revenue. Reduced revenues along with increased state/federal spending equates to debt.

Now, I understand the call for spending cuts, towit, if you're running a deficit the best way to reduce the debt is to reduce the amount of funds given to specific government programs or eliminate them completely. It's clear that in hard economic times, however, very few governing bodies are willing to cut programs they believe are necessary to provide aid to those individuals who are suffering economically. So, since the onset of the October 2008 recession where the deficit was already extremely high, our government had to act quickly in an attempt to inject capital into the economy otherwise face going into a depression. They (the Obama Administration) determined that the best way to do this was via public-private partnerships (meaning government contracts to private businesses) or via providing funds to the States for infrastructor projects. Corporate America - the private sector - could not correct itself because it (our financial sectors) were the problem (i.e., bad mortgage lending, over-extended credit, too much financial risk). That brings us up to today...

Conservatives are tic'd because they consider allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire to be a "tax hike". But as we all know these taxes were due to expire at the end of the year, thereby resetting them back to where they were originally prior to 2003 (which was the second tax reduction authorized by former Pres. G. W. Bush). Compounding their anger is the fact that many entitlement programs, i.e,. unemployment benefits, are being authorized in a downed economy. As such, the combination of tax cuts on top of entitlements are adding to the deficit. How? Because the tax cuts are no longer offset by revenues that taxation without deficit spending would have ordinarily generated. As such, our government has to borrow money in order to make up the difference.

So, yes, where ordinarily tax cuts would not cost the government a penny in spending when the economy is up, they do cost the government when the economy is down. Even if you cut spending in a down economy and still had tax cuts, if the government is running a deficit, eventually they'd have a significant reduction in revenues to work from which is exactly the case we find ourselves in today. To learn more on this matter, read this detailed review from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Click to expand...

So then when you get to keep more of what you earn do you need more or less govt. "help" and thus is tax cuts to you an expense to the govt? Can you explain why govt. revenue went up AFTER the JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush tax cuts?

BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

What really bothers me is the principle of the matter, taking money from one group and doing what the govt. wants with it instead of letting the people who earned it keep more of it. I have posted many times the line items for the U.S. Budget and there still seems to be a problem with many understanding use taxes vs. income taxes. If you earn income you are supposed to pay income taxes on that money and you don't pay use taxes unless you use the services, i.e. roads with the gasoline excise taxes, schools, police, fire with property taxes or assessed taxes, sales taxes on goods purchased.

So, I disagree with the assessment that tax cuts are an expense. If they mean less revenue then you do less spending. We didn't need the kind of stimulus plan that Obama got passed and signed and the results prove it, 4 million more jobs lost after the stimulus was signed and 3 trillion added to the debt in two years.

Sorry, but I have no interest in reading anything that defies logic and common sense. There is no line item for tax cuts being an expense but there is a line item for unemployment benefits. If you are going to get less money from tax cuts, then cut spending. You tell me if there is anything here you can cut?

Expenses

Defense 662.8
International Affairs 38.6
Gen. Science, Space 29.9
Energy 4.6
Natural resources/env 45.7
Agriculture 14.0
Commerce 292.5
Transportation 84.4
Community Dev 26.2
Education/Train/Social 78.2
Health 334.3
Medicare 430.1
Income Security 533.9
Social Security 683.0
Veterans Benefits 95.5
Justice 53.4
General Govt. 17.6
Net Interest 190.9


Total 3615.6

Saying that there is nothing here to cut is absolutely incredible and violates logic and common sense.

Now the real problem with the current deficit is there are 16+ million unemployed Americans not paying any income taxes and raising the taxes on anyone doesn't help put them back to work. In addition even if more money was collected there is no guarantee that it will go to reduce the deficit. Does anyone know where the TARP repayment went or the billions still remaining from the Stimulus that hasn't been spent? Instead of looking for money from one group why not look at the TARP and Stimulus funding and where the repayment and unspent money is?
 
Kandahar said:
That's a lot bigger than an extension of unemployment benefits, both in terms of dollars and in terms of politics. Tax cuts for the wealthy are basically the central plank of the Republican platform. Furthermore, extending them now increases the likelihood that they will be made permanent in 2012, and it makes Obama invested in defending the Republican position for the next two years. An extension of unemployment benefits, while modestly important for the short-term economic recovery, is not going to get most Democrats worked up. It almost certainly will not be extended again, and it's certainly not worth the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

There is more to it than that, tax increases on any class violates the basic principles upon which this country's economy was built and sends the wrong message on so many avenues. Tax cuts are not an expense to the govt, and there is no guarantee it will increase revenue or that even if it does that it will lower the deficit. Can you explain to me where the TARP money went as well as the unspent stimulus. We just set a record in November for the highest deficit on record so should someone be asking where that money for repayment and unused stimulus went?

This Administration has yet to be right on any issue yet for some reason people believe him now. 700 billion in tax increases over 10 years is 70 billion a year to attack the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Logic and common sense escapes a lot of people.
 
Conservative said:
So then when you get to keep more of what you earn do you need more or less govt. "help" and thus is tax cuts to you an expense to the govt? Can you explain why govt. revenue went up AFTER the JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush tax cuts?
Click to expand...
Sure. Incomes tax collection wasn't the only source of revenue for the government. You have the sell of bonds, for example, and the increase of other taxes such as the capital gains tax. There are lots of ways the government earns revenue. To say revenues increased only due to the reduction in payroll taxes is a false perception. But what Republicans would have one believe is individual tax cuts are the only source of revenue the government has. It is not.

You also have a decrease in interest rates towards Treasure Bonds. That has far much more of an impact on government revenues than most anything else because the government sells so many of them to other countries as a means to pay down the debt or extend credit. There's also government exports, i.e., airframes (the sell of fighter, commercial and cargo planes), tanks, older-out dated warships, etc., etc., food...so many other things that earn the Treasure money.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Do you even know what you posted? Read it again, cloture prevents a filibuster and you need 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. No bill can go to the floor of the Senate without cloture. Do you understand yet?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that cloture only has to be invoked if the filibuster is used? if it is NOT used, the the 60 vote threshold never ever comes into play.

This is exactly what you do in thread after thread after thread. You attempt to derail the main idea by focusing on minor details that prove to be quicks and for everyone because they go nowhere.

Here is the point and you fail to recognize it: the tax raise going into effect in a few weeks was part of the bill passed by the 107th Congress when republican George Bush was President, the GOP held the House, and there was a tie in the Senate but with a Republican VP available to break any tie.

Deal with it ... don't deal with it. You are only making yourself look silly with this stuff.

You continually confuse the environment in the Senate today with the environment in the 107th Congress a decade ago. You continue to apply the tactics of the party of No today, and pretend that they were commonplace a decade ago. And it does not matter either way because the tax raises were put in place a long time ago under a Republican President Bush and the 107th Congress.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Sure. Incomes tax collection wasn't the only source of revenue for the government. You have the sell of bonds, for example, and the increase of other taxes such as the capital gains tax. There are lots of ways the government earns revenue. To say revenues increased only due to the reduction in payroll taxes is a false perception. But what Republicans would have one believe is individual tax cuts are the only source of revenue the government has. It is not.

You also have a decrease in interest rates towards Treasure Bonds. That has far much more of an impact on government revenues than most anything else because the government sells so many of them to other countries as a means to pay down the debt or extend credit. There's also government exports, i.e., airframes (the sell of fighter, commercial and cargo planes), tanks, older-out dated warships, etc., etc., food...so many other things that earn the Treasure money.
Click to expand...

If you went to the site I gave you and keep giving you will see that INCOME TAX REVENUE went up AFTER the tax rate cuts. Seems that is a hard concept to grasp. Income taxes are NOT Payroll taxes, FICA is. Never in my life have I had to work so hard to convince others that value of keeping more of their own money. this is unbelieveable.
 
haymarket said:
Do you understand that cloture only has to be invoked if the filibuster is used? if it is NOT used, the the 60 vote threshold never ever comes into play.

This is exactly what you do in thread after thread after thread. You attempt to derail the main idea by focusing on minor details that prove to be quicks and for everyone because they go nowhere.

Here is the point and you fail to recognize it: the tax raise going into effect in a few weeks was part of the bill passed by the 107th Congress when republican George Bush was President, the GOP held the House, and there was a tie in the Senate but with a Republican VP available to break any tie.

Deal with it ... don't deal with it. You are only making yourself look silly with this stuff.

You continually confuse the environment in the Senate today with the environment in the 107th Congress a decade ago. You continue to apply the tactics of the party of No today, and pretend that they were commonplace a decade ago. And it does not matter either way because the tax raises were put in place a long time ago under a Republican President Bush and the 107th Congress.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong, it took 60 votes then just like it is now to get anything to the floor of the Senate. The sunset provision is the only way that this tax bill was allowed to the floor in an evenly divided Senate. That has been the rules of the Senate long before the 107th Congress took office. Why are you having a problem with this concept?
 
Conservative said:
You couldn't be more wrong, it took 60 votes then just like it is now to get anything to the floor of the Senate. The sunset provision is the only way that this tax bill was allowed to the floor in an evenly divided Senate. That has been the rules of the Senate long before the 107th Congress took office. Why are you having a problem with this concept?
Click to expand...

Good lord man. It only takes sixty votes - the cloture rule - when a filibuster is invoked. Now today, the Republicans seem to invoke the filibuster on almost everything and they set a record for it last year and will set a record again this year. When you hear some news person say "they need sixty votes to bring this to the floor" or some variation of that, what they are saying is that under the GOP obstructionist tactics employed over the last two years, this has become commonplace and has become the defacto 'rule'. This is why you are confused.

But do this for me please: provide clear and unambiguous language stating just what you claim - that you must have sixty votes to bring every bill to the floor for a vote and it has always been this way.

I will await such evidence from you.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
If you went to the site I gave you and keep giving you will see that INCOME TAX REVENUE went up AFTER the tax rate cuts. Seems that is a hard concept to grasp. Income taxes are NOT Payroll taxes, FICA is. Never in my life have I had to work so hard to convince others that value of keeping more of their own money. this is unbelieveable.
Click to expand...

It is really hard to keep listening to people say they should "keep their own money". Try going to a fancy restaurant, have a fine meal, then tell the owner once you finish you're not paying. You feel you should keep your own money.

You may not approve, but the government, elected by us spent the money. It is time to pick up the tab. The reality is that all of the tax cuts should have been allowed to expire unless congress came up with enough cuts to pay for them.

Unless you feel it is OK to say, I won't pay send the bill to my kids then until we send people to congress to cut spending, we need to pay the tab.
 
washunut said:
It is really hard to keep listening to people say they should "keep their own money". Try going to a fancy restaurant, have a fine meal, then tell the owner once you finish you're not paying. You feel you should keep your own money.

You may not approve, but the government, elected by us spent the money. It is time to pick up the tab. The reality is that all of the tax cuts should have been allowed to expire unless congress came up with enough cuts to pay for them.

Unless you feel it is OK to say, I won't pay send the bill to my kids then until we send people to congress to cut spending, we need to pay the tab.
Click to expand...

what we have issues with is that a system that once was fair was changed to a system where the many can constantly vote up the rates of the few because the many have more votes. Those in the top 5% are paying most of the federal income taxes and many in the bottom 95% are basically freeloaders
 
haymarket said:
Good lord man. It only takes sixty votes - the cloture rule - when a filibuster is invoked. Now today, the Republicans seem to invoke the filibuster on almost everything and they set a record for it last year and will set a record again this year. When you hear some news person say "they need sixty votes to bring this to the floor" or some variation of that, what they are saying is that under the GOP obstructionist tactics employed over the last two years, this has become commonplace and has become the defacto 'rule'. This is why you are confused.

But do this for me please: provide clear and unambiguous language stating just what you claim - that you must have sixty votes to bring every bill to the floor for a vote and it has always been this way.

I will await such evidence from you.
Click to expand...

You symbolize the problem in this country today, failure to understand the legislative process. The Senate put that requirement in years ago, long before 2001. It is you that is confused, it takes 60 votes to OVERRIDE a veto but it also takes 60 votes to end debate and get a bill to the floor. Two different issues. Think that Democrats never used that tool? If not you are very naive.

You can Google 60 votes required in the Senate and get a number of better sites but this one is the most concise. Many bills are bipartisan and aren't debated but any bill that is debated in the Senate is subject to the 60 vote rule and has been used by both parties.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080503071735AAaPaYT
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
what we have issues with is that a system that once was fair was changed to a system where the many can constantly vote up the rates of the few because the many have more votes. Those in the top 5% are paying most of the federal income taxes and many in the bottom 95% are basically freeloaders
Click to expand...

And when was it "fair" in your opinion?
 
haymarket said:
ahhh - so you do want to repeal the 20th century.
Click to expand...

That is silly. I want the precedent that existed through Schechter Poultry to have been respected by the FDR intimidated Supreme Court. if that stare decisis would have remained we would be debating a tax rate of 12% versus 8%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom