Reply With Quote
just like a Repug, NO SPECIFICS on which loopholes, deductions, and tax reform.
We could get 1.2 trillion in additional revenue by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.
just like a Repug, NO SPECIFICS on which loopholes, deductions, and tax reform.
Democrats agree as well that we could do it by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.
Semantics. The tax debate in this country is distorted by a focus on nominal, marginal tax rates rather than effective tax rates. There are multiple ways to skin a cat, and I really don't care how it's done... let's just get that ed skinned.
Bear with me Scott. I'm going somewhere with this...
But I do think this is a good place for this to be reposted.
Sorry, I thought this was an upper division course. I'll be back in a few years.Bear with me Scott. I'm going somewhere with this...
OK Damn it! Impatient are we?Sorry, I thought this was an upper division course. I'll be back in a few years.
That's the direction I want to head. Fewer deductions, simplified tax code, lower marginal rates all while ending up revenue positive.
But, to answer your question, the push for raising rates is being driven by the tax industry (accountants, lawyers, etc) who don't want to see a simplified tax code because, heaven forbid, taxes become so simplified that people can do them themselves. It's also due to politicians who want to pander to an uneducated electorate that's incapable of understanding taxes beyond the marginal rate. Pointing to the evil rich guy's marginal tax rate that's been increased is easy for the mob to understand. Pointing to the evil rich guy's tax rate that has decreased and trying to explain to the mob how the rich guy actually ends up paying more because you took away all his deductions will only cause confusion and distrust.
Fine. Let's get down to the dirty work of identifying which specific loopholes/deductions that need to be eliminated to meet those revenue goals.
I'd be more interested in closing the loopholes that allow companies to stash money overseas and wait out for some form of tax holiday to end up bringing that back for pennies on the dollar (an effective discount rate)... There's likely way more than $1.2 trillion coming in that way, but I'm also fully aware that's never going to happen.
As far as tax reform vs tax rates, I'd like to see the numbers where this $1.2 trillion in savings comes from. In other words, who shoulders the burden on that. Notice I'm not saying I'm for or against it, just that there's not enough information where this money is coming from (ie: which deductions go away, for who, etc). The devil is always in the details.
Where are you going with this anyway? Obama has made it clear that raising the tax rates on the top 2% is a down payment and that he is open to tax reform which would bring down rates across the board. If he fold on the top rates again, republicans will just him again. It's not like he didn't campaign on restoring the rates to Clinton era levels for the top two brackets. Your side lost and elections have consequences.
See post #10
Dems have plenty of specifics in the proposal, goes back the campaign.
otoh, Repugs won't even put forth Ryan's twice-passed plan, effectively disowning it.
This political posturing is also foreplay to the upcoming debt-ceiling debate where the GOP is going to play the "small government" and "deficit hawks" game nobody is buying from them, while the Democrats prove once again that they don't care about deficits either.
I saw post 10. As I said, Obama is open to reforming the tax code as long as there are significant new revenue. Getting to that is unrealistic before the end of the year. So his down payment is $1T over 10 years (e.g. Letting the top 2 brackets revert back to Clinton era levels). With this card up his sleeve, maybe we can discuss some real tax reform next year.
I'm for returning to the Clinton era tax rates, IF we also return to Clinton era spending rates.
That would require military spending cuts, thus it won't pass the House.
profound
It would also require putting people back to work. What kind of solutions does DarrinS have for putting people back to work.
As a % of GDP?
I'm on board.
I'm for adding brackets onto what currently exists, and also doing everything mentioned in the OP. The argument Republicans are clinging to is, "what if it's someone who makes 250-300k and has kids and a small business
"quite frankly hilarious watching the GOP pretend it cares so much about small businesses that make 250-300k a year"
they cared MUCH MORE about the few 1000 families that pocketed $T+ from the REPUG estate tax cuts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
