Republicans differ on flexibility on taxes with Obama

How about if Romney pays a higher tax rate than 13% That’s what the election was a referendum on, the wealthy should pay their fare share.

How does Romney get away with laundering BILLIONS in unreported income through a bank in the Caymans owned by his Church? Amegy Bank of Houston owned by Zions Bancorp.

There’s always hope, but not for Obama for the GOP. They still do not get it, unless we tax the special interest and greedy old people, “No deal”.

“On Thursday, a Senate bill to avert a federal government shutdown stalled under the weight of more than 100 proposed amendments as senators sought to attach pet provisions.”

I wonder if these toga wearing jerks can see Rome burning from the steps of the Capital?

How about we charge a war tax on all defense companies providing work and services, many times no-bid contracts for the two unfunded wars the republicans got us into, that would reduce the debt by over 5-trillion dollars.

speaker2 wrote: “How about we charge a war tax on all defense companies providing work and services….that would reduce the debt by over 5-trillion dollars.”

How pray tell would that work and how did you come up with the $5 trillion amount?

Just curious.

Why do GOP members want a deal with a man who may not even be President.

The Presidents plan on taxes is very reasonable. The richest pay a minimum of 28%. It circumvents the argument about which loopholes to close. Not only will the Republicans not bend on this issue, the new Ryan plan offers HUGE tax breaks that disproportionately favor the richest in this country. Which is virtually guaranteed to pass a vote in the House. If the Republicans had their way on taxes Romney might end up being one of the 47%. More tax breaks with a $16T debt, $1T annual deficits and no clear plan to cut spending? This is fiscally responsible? If any of you are curious about who’s to blame for this mess and you voted for one of these idiots in the last election….look in the mirror.

Tax capital gains as ordinary income. There’s absolutely no reason that income that you get from sitting on your butt while other people do the hard work should be taxed at a lower rate than the hard work itself.

@Harry079,

The cost to date of the Iraq war is three trillion and counting. The current cost of the Afghan War is two trillion. This does not count future health and retirement cost.

How would it work, create a war tax and tax all corporations that held contracts in those wars. Or better yet, just throw an war tax of say 10% on all registered republican for getting us into these un-warranted wars until the cost is paid for.

Maybe for good measure let the international courts try the Bush administration for war crimes.

It doesn’t take any with half an IQ (except a republican or tea bagger) to know we need to reduce spending and raise revenue (new taxes) to pay for these unfunded wars and the national debt.

About 10% of the population has about 90% of the money and now they want to take away even the 10% of the money that remains,from the rest off us.NO MORE!

Speaker2,

Before you toss just the Repubs to the tax wolves you might want to review your recent history. Nearly every Congressional Dem spoke out in favor of war against Iraq, and they voted in favor of the Congressional resolution for military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and before you pull the old BS about “Bush lied”, remember the head of the Senate Foreign relations and National Security & Intelligence committees at the time were Democrats, Dianne Feinstein for one, and all of them backed the war, until it began to get unpopular. Perhaps the Democrats need to pull their heads out of their behinds and admit their complicity instead of their traditional buck passing.

Liberals continually whine about more taxes and the fact that Romney doesn’t pay enough. How about Obama? His net worth has more than tripled in the past few years due to his book sales, bribery graft and other government kickbacks, so when does he start paying his “fair share”?

Maybe we need to to start taxing ALL politicians at the rate of 90%-100% until the national debt is retired and the deficit is eliminated?

ACRScount..the first part of your comment is lucid and accurate. Feinstein in particular is an embarrassment. Her statements at the banning assault weapon hearing was about as bad as it gets. Cruz eat her lunch. The second part of your statement is inaccurate and more than just a little on the whiny side. Obama’s income has dropped considerably over the past couple of years (the books were written before he became president). And he pays more than double the tax rate of Romney. Advocating taxing anyone at a 90-100% tax rate is among one of the most assinine statements I’ve ever seen. How about we quit voting the same idiots to office over and over again. The President’s plan to tax the richest at a minimum 28% tax rate is more than reasonable. Let’s try not swing from one extreme to the other.

1%, mostly publicans but certainly not speaking with one voice, set the agenda for policies toward 99% of Americans. Those 1% have accumulated untold personal wealth. Now they ask why they are expected to do anything at all for their country when all that is asked is a greater share of the burden for those making more than $250,000.

This has become the American and especially the conservative value system. They have theirs, perhaps they worked for it, or perhaps inherited it and great grandad worked for it, but they will die before a single cent is pulled from their greedy hands for anything to help the less fortunate, or the country.

Republicans ignore tax entitlements, which flow mostly to high-income taxpayers, while pushing to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Each year, tax breaks for high income people are worth $1.1 trillion.

That is more than the cost of Medicare and Medicaid combined. It is more than Social Security. It tops the defense budget, and it tops the budget for non-defense discretionary programs, which include most everything else.

Many tactics are indefensible and should be ended, including:

1. CARRIED INTEREST
This loophole lets private equity partners pay tax on most of their income at a top rate of 20 percent, versus a top rate of 39.6 percent for other high-income professionals.
2. NINE-FIGURE I.R.A.’S Remember Mitt Romney’s $100 million I.R.A?
Private equity partners apparently build up vast tax-deferred accounts by claiming that the equity interests transferred to such accounts from, say, their firms’ buyout targets are not worth much.
3. LIKE KIND’ EXCHANGES
Enacted 90 years ago to help farmers sell land and horses without owing tax, as long as they used the proceeds to buy new farm assets. Today, it is used by wealthy individuals and big companies to avoid tax on the sale of art, vacation homes, rental properties, oil wells, commercial real estate and thoroughbred horses, among other transactions.
4. Other Tax Shelters
Many of which take the form of arrangements that allow wealthy taxpayers to either escape tax entirely on specific transactions or to defer it indefinitely.

Also it is interesting that Shrinking the tax deduction for charity, shrinking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for the poor are on the table. But a carbon tax that could close the deficit and clean the air, weaken petro-dictators, strengthen the dollar, drive clean-tech innovation and still leave some money to lower corporate and income taxes is off the table.

Experts believe that the mere signal of a carbon tax would get companies to become more energy efficient. And that’s the point. As part of any grand bargain — which will have to include spending cuts and tax increases — introducing a carbon tax into the mix makes all kinds of options easier and smarter.

According to the nonpartisan Resources for the Future, a tax of $25 per ton of carbon-dioxide emitted — “would raise approximately $125 billion annually.”

This $125 billion “could allow federal personal income tax reductions of about 15 percent or corporate income tax reductions of about 70 percent. Alternatively, the federal deficit could be reduced by approximately $1.25 trillion over 10 years” —

roughly what we are trying to do through the sequester. Such a tax would add about 21 cents per gallon of gasoline and about 1.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity. It could be phased in gradually as the economy improves.

xyz2055,

Obama’s income has dropped considerably over the past couple of years? How is that possible? he’s been President for 4 years and the book royalties have not stopped. How can you justify the statement that Obama’s tax rates have changed when he refuses to release any data about himself? I agree that advocating taxing anyone at a 90-100% tax rate is somewhat ridiculous, perhaps you could mention that to the lefties who say that all corporate profits be taxed at that rate, or Feinstein and Boxer who said that Bonuses that were agreed to and paid before the ’08 collapse, be retroactively taxed at 100%.

I have no love for the rich, I make less than $70,000.00 per year, but just because I am not among the rich is no reason to demonize them. They did what they did and worked the deals they did for their income. But they are still more honorable than politicians, since unlike politicians CEO’s do not vote themselves pay raises from the treasury then demand taxpayers support them.

I might support Obama’s tax plans, id they were aimed at the betterment of the nation, but since he only wants higher taxes to support newer spending on special interests, I will always toss the BS flag on that type of duplicity.

Speaker2,
Why do liberals continually spout the phony numbers regarding the wars?

The cost of the entire Iraq operation as cited by the CBO is far less and the $3 trillion you claim.

Not only that, but the costs cited by the government also include the pay and allowances for the soldiers, and the standard operating costs of their units. But these costs would be incurred for training, even in peacetime, this means that the actual cost of “the war” is less than half the figures you state.

Speaker2,
Why do liberals continually spout the phony numbers regarding the wars?

The cost of the entire Iraq operation as cited by the CBO is far less and the $3 trillion you claim.

Not only that, but the costs cited by the government also include the pay and allowances for the soldiers, and the standard operating costs of their units. But these costs would be incurred for training, even in peacetime, this means that the actual cost of “the war” is less than half the figures you state.

RichardRemmele,

Interesting diatribe on taxes, but before we declare “TAX WAR” on the rich, perhaps you could go actually read the U.S. Constitution and what it has to say about taxation. Rather than using the tax code as a weapon by partisan government hacks to attack their opponents, we could limit government and eliminate the taxes that are currently, less used to fund the government and moreso used to confiscate legally obtained wealth?

Tax all income the same regardless of the source – a dollar earned is a dollar earned and should be taxed at the same rate. Most especially, tax ‘carried interest’ the same as all other income. This is a current benefit only for hedge funds and their wealthy clients who don’t really need the tax break. A lot of these people are crooks anyway as witnessed by the number of recent successful prosecutions. If there must continue to be a long term for capital gains set it at 5 years instead of 1 to reward the truly loyal stockholders. And there is another tax the wealthy don’t pay on an equitable basis or, often, not at all and that is the payroll tax. Anyone with wages less than $110,000 pays 7.65% plus their employer pays another 6.2% or 13.85% total. If one earns over $110,000 the percent paid decreases the more that is earned: at $250,000 it falls from 7.65% to 3.37%, at $500,000 it is 1.68%, at $1,000,000 it is .84%. Two things should be done with this tax: make it a flat tax without a ceiling (the % would be much lower), and since many people earn their income from sources other than wages, apply it to all sources of income (including stock options and special incentives given to senior executives).

ACRS..do you ever vet anything before you post something and stick your foot in your mouth?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/politics/obamas-release-tax-returns.html?_r=0

Before Obama was President, Michelle Obama was a Hospital Administrator making big bucks. Her income today is zero!

Obama has released his tax returns every year he’s been in office. The link above if for 2011. 2012 numbers aren’t out yet.

I blame all politicians. Everyone has an agenda. And most of that is directed to some special interest group. Both sides are guilty….stop voting for incumbents!

ACRScout…please provide credible evidence of any NEW spending that Obama is advocating and how much it will cost. I know that in his current plan he wants $100B for infrastructure (chump change). Over all his plan cuts $1.85T over 10 years. With specific cuts. His American Jobs Act, which the House Republicans refuse to bring up for a vote..would have created a lot of new jobs and increased the GDP (independent analysis) and it was funded. It would not have added 1 dime to the debt or the deficits. Quit drinking the koolaid my friend…actually go out and research these things…

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills.
It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.
Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

@acrscout,

I will stand by my figures. As far as the cost of training and maintaining troop as normal cost in our over reaction to 9-11 we have double the size and budget f the DOD. Frankly, we should be cutting DOD by 60-70% today. There is not reason to continue to spend as much as we do on defense.

If we’d start minding our own business and stop poking our nose into other country’s business and what we’d perceive as our national interest maybe people wouldn’t attack us.

The problem with you leftists is that you don’t get the full picture.

The issue of income inequality in this country correlates with BIG government. Who controls Washington? Big corporations who lobby. Why do they thrive in such an enviroment? Because resources are needed to find your way in big government and only corporations have them. If leftists were truly in favor of ending corporate dominace, then they would not be opposed to a smaller, more efficent government that would make government available to the interests of main street. Look throughout history, when has big government been the solution? Leftists should be pushing for a straightforward tax system, not proposing methods to expand regulations that make it even more complicated. Everyone should pay an effective tax rate, NO LOOPHOLES, limit deductions dramically and you will generate more revenue. It’s not about the percentage people pay–that conversation only encourages class warfare and discourages hard work–it’s about simplifying the tax system.

@Speaker2 Like it or not, defense generates jobs. If the government decides to create a new submarine, money passes through several different hands (the contractor, the electrician, the supplier, etc). Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are effected by the sequester. I would much rather have my tax dollars go towards jobs then to flow into the hands of an inefficent bureaucracy.

“It doesn’t take any with half an IQ (except a republican or tea bagger) to know we need to reduce spending and raise revenue (new taxes) to pay for these unfunded wars and the national debt.”

It also doesn’t take half an IQ to realize that these “spending cuts” Democrats are proposing are hardly enough to fix the long-term problem. By the same token, it’s not hard to understand that taxing every cent of the top 1% isn’t going to do a lot.

Speaker2..I agree. With the debt and the deficits how do you justify the huge amount of money we spend on Defense. Rand Paul (though I’m not a fan) pointed out that we sent Egypt another $250M last week. How do you justify subsidizing every third world country on the planet when we can’t afford to pay our debts. This government wastes way way way too much money.

bate148..I’m all ears! Please detail what Republican is advocating a smaller government…cite the bill and the specifics please. Loopholes..same deal..name the Republican bill and the loopholes they intend to close. While you’re at it defend Paul Ryan’s latest plan to give the richest in this country another round of tax breaks. Explain how that’s “fiscally responsible”. Your explanation of tax dollars spent on Defense is laughable. How about we simply don’t spend the money at all. The President is proposing that the richest pay a minimum of 28%, which would be the lowest tax rate on record for that income group of all time. What’s wrong with that proposal? You think that Democrats believe that taxing the rich will solve all our problems. You are delusional. Congress have given the richest every break on the planet. To the point where they pay the lowest percentage of taxes outside the 47%. It’s about fairness..did that ever dawn on you.

entitlement programs are not sustainable in their current form

Really, and the people have said they would pay more SS and Medicare to keep the entitlement programs as is. You fool republicans just do not get it, all you want to do is TAKE from the middle class and poor and GIVE more to the rich. Get over it just let the people pay a little more in taxes and keep what little dignity you republicans allow us to have. The Rich are doing fine. BUT I hope and guess most of the GOP WILL be voted out asap.

So the Republican are only willing to make a deal if Obama screws the elderly and sick really really badly.

OK got it. No deal is better than a bad deal Every person on the planet knows that. High I would like to buy your car I worth 20,000 I will give you 500 for it. No deal. not some deal not lets talk about it not even if you give sexual favors.

” jackolantyrn356 wrote:

Why do GOP members want a deal with a man who may not even be President.
more delusion and denial, same as your republican representatives. the more you speak the more you reek.

bates148..smaller more efficient government…in 2002 a Republican Congress with a Republican aPresident created the Department of Homeland Security. Today it has an annual budget of $60B and 240,000 employees. Name another department that is anywhere near this size and cost created by the Democrats in the past 50 years. Why couldn’t the various other security departments in existence (CIA, FBI, etc) have picked up those tasks. Every single dollar the U.S. government spends creates jobs. Not just the Dept of Defense. No matter where you cut spending in the U.S. government…you will create unemployment.

Set aside all the political BS about cuts, taxes and balance, the FACT is we are on a pace to outspend 2012 and add another Trillion or so to our debt no matter what the CBO, Congress or the Presidents says.

Simple fact..you can’t get re-elected by cutting spending. You’ll make some group mad doing that. Why do you think the Republicans worked so hard to put the blame for the sequester on Obama. In spite of the fact that they wrote and passed the legislation before sending it to him for signature.

As usual, Senator Durbin wants to just keep the government running on continual resolutions to avoid ever cutting anything. He seeks only to continue to borrow, spend and buy votes to keep his power. He and his kind are at the core of our governments addiction to unlimited tax dollars and debt. He make us weak.

Apparently, Paul Ryan, “The numbers guy” can’t do the math. If the USA does not raise more revenue, then the debt will never be paid down and it will always be a problem.

Taxes *must* be raised through the closing of corporate tax loopholes. The Defense budget, which has *doubled* in the last twelve years, MUST be trimmed. Republicans like to raise the boogeyman of the ‘welfare state’, and the ‘food stamp millionaire’, and bring up the myth of the ‘wealthy poor’, but these are all myths.

Families that used to be solidly middle class are now on food stamps because of layoffs that resulted when the loose bank regulations that the REPUBLICANS called for resulted in a bubble and then a massive crash.

We can’t tax cut our way to a balanced budget. We can’t solely cut spending, either. It must be both.

I mean, it must be both additional revenue even if tax rates go down, tax revenues must go up.

@xyz2055 How is my explanation of tax dollars spent on defense laughable? It’s basic economics. Unfortunately, a large portion of our economy is dependent on the defense industry. Can you argue that we need a smaller military? Sure, it’s a rational position but again, many jobs are dependent on that military budget. Don’t spend any money at all on defense? Our GDP will decline dramatically. Look, we need to get more revenue out of the richest Americans, it’s absolutely necessary. I’m suggesting that the way we get that extra revenue is by reforming our tax code. This argument about “fairness” is leftist nonsense. Look at the marginal tax rates in this country. The more money you make, the higher tax rate you have. What’s not fair? Well, again, it’s the loopholes that the rich are able to exploit due to big government. Why has Congress given the richest every break on the planet? They have the capabilities and influence to do so. Do you really think our politicians (both Democrat and Republican) in Washington are really in it for the interests of the people? That’s delusional my friend.

@bates148,

Yes cutting back on defense will cost jobs. The same companies could redirect and do non- defense manufacturing or services. We have an infrastructure problem, 70,000 bridge n bad shape, poor roads etc. redirecting defense spending towards infrastructure .

What doesn’t make sense is the republicans want to take any loophole reduction, and instead of using this as revenue to reduce the debt, they want to use the revenue to continue to lower tax rates. The tax cuts of Bush did not grow the economy, so that dogs don’t hunt. So why keep lower tax rates?

bates 148 to get our debt and deficit problem under control (cutting spending) it will cost jobs regardless where the cuts are made. Every dollar the U.S. government spends creates jobs. We spend 46% of what the entire world spends on Defense. That is insane. I’m not advocating that we stop spending money on Defense. But Republicans refuse to make any significant cuts in Defense spending. The Sequester is the only reason any cuts at all were made to Defense. Romney/Ryan ran on INCREASING Defense spending. Prove me wrong…cite any bill sponsored by Republicans that advocates cutting 1 dime from Defense spending.

You said: “This argument about “fairness” is leftist nonsense. Look at the marginal tax rates in this country. The more money you make, the higher tax rate you have. What’s not fair?” In principle your statement is accurate. The stated tax rates are progressive. In reality it doesn’t work that way. Virtually every middle class family in America pays a higher percent of their income in Federal Taxes than Mitt Romney who makes millions. He posted his two tax returns during the last election and he pays approx. 13%. Because lower rates for Capital Gains, Dividends and Carried interest. As well as other loopholes. While I singled out Mitt (only because he actually posted his returns, he is far far from being alone here. You conveniently avoided my statement about Obama’s proposal that the richest pay a minimum of 28% in taxes. Why wouldn’t that be just as fair as an argument of which loopholes to close which I believe would never get resolved. I never stated that politicians in Washington are really in it for the interests of the people. That would indeed be delusional. But nice try at putting words in my mouth (or claiming I said that in a post when I didn’t).

bates 148….said “Look, we need to get more revenue out of the richest Americans, it’s absolutely necessary. I’m suggesting that the way we get that extra revenue is by reforming our tax code.” There isn’t a single Republican in Congress who on the record agrees with that statement. In fact Ryan’s latest version would as written give the richest in this country a huge tax break. Republicans have stated in the press over and over again of late “No More Tax Increases”. Are you sure you’re a Republican?

Out of the mouths of politicians. At CPAC Rand Paul advocated a 17% flat tax. If you believe that the sequester would create unemployment…this idea is unemployment on steroids. While I haven’t done the math, on the surface it looks like a significant increase in taxes for those in the lower income tax brackets, a moderate tax cut for the middle income (depending on how the loss of certain deductions like Mortgage Interest plays out) tax brackets and a HUGE tax break for the richest in this country. A massive loss in revenue. Completing a tax form might be as simple as posting your total income and multiplying that number by .17. That’s your tax. And thus putting nearly every personal tax service in America out of business.

Too many Republicans see entitlement reform to mean slashing benefits to those who have earned them, and tax reform to slash taxes for the wealthy.

Each loophole to be closed has a team of dedicated lobbyists defending them. But the most egregious ones are those used by the very wealthy. Carried interest, and the shelters that allow someone like Mitt Romney pay a 13% federal income tax rate.

Will shutting them raise a lot of money? Perhaps not, but the message would be clear.

Fiscal issues? We don’t have any fiscal issues in America? After all didn’t we just give hundreds of millions of dollars and fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Only a complete lunatic would give out foreign aid while being broke at the same time, oh wait that is exactly what the OWEbama administration is doing.

Someone correct me if I’m mistaken, but is Social Security not funded by payroll tax? Meaning, not a single dime comes from the Treasury, and hence does not contribute to the deficit at all? So it seems to me that bringing up Social Security when talking about cutting spending is a non-sequitur.

But regarding the larger issue of taxes/spending, there are a plethora of ways to increase revenue without increasing income taxes. First and foremost, let’s end corporate welfare. Multi-billion dollar international corporations do not need government handouts; Wall Street, Big Oil – they are doing just fine. Let’s take a cue from Romney and eliminate some tax loopholes that allow the wealthiest 1% of Americans to reduce their tax rate below that of someone making $50,000. Democrats are aware of this; the only problem is that Republicans have been successful in using “raising taxes” as a catch-all for increasing revenue. Once again, they want to scare average Americans who won’t be affected one iota by these increased revenue approaches into believing Obama wants to raise their taxes.