GOP offers $500 billion in new revenue

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wiseacre, Nov 10, 2011.

  1. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    In todays WSJ there's an op-ed about this, this week the 6 repubs on the super committee offered a tax reform that would lock in lower rates in exchange for giving up deductions. The plan was to raise $250 billion by restricting the total amount of deductions to something like 2% of the individual's AGI. Which I'm sure you realize would hit those top earners that libdems hate so much. But in exchange the top rates would be cut to 28% from 35% for the top earners, with other lower rates also falling.

    The net result would still be a $250 billion increase in revenue over 10 years. Given the history of revenue gains that come after a cut in marginal tax rate cuts, that amount could be a lot more.

    Another $40 billion in new revenue would come from changing the formula for adjusting the tax brackets for inflation. And another $200 billion more would come from a variety of other things, all scored on a static basis by the Joint Tax Committee. IOW, the additional revenue could vbe more but not less.

    And corporate tax reform could also be done to cut the top rate from 35% to 25% in return for eliminating deductions.

    In exchange, the democrats would have had to give up $750 billion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. About $180 billion of that would come from changing the inflation calculation for benefits, not sure what benefits are being referred to. And the Bush tax cuts would be permanent.

    But still, this is a good deal but the dems turned it down. We're talking a ratio of 1.5 to 1 in spending cuts to revenue increases here, far better for the dems that the 3:1 recommended by the Simpson Bowles Commission. They want the Bush tax cuts AND a full trillion in new revenue AND no reduction at all in the top tax rate.

    So who are the real ideologues here?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2011
  2. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    Honestly, I don't see how this is a "good" deal. That much over 10 years amounts to 25 billion a year. The President is already saving nearly as much through Executive orders to his departments. When the Dems made comparable offers to reduce spending, they were rebuked by the GOP for not giving serious offers.
     
  3. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Actually, it's about $50 billion a year, and if you think Obama is going to save nearly $25 billion a year on fucking coffee mugs, pens, and mouse pads then you're out of your mind.

    They made a move, okay? One which is better for the country than where we are now. And the dems trashed it for purely political reasons. They just lost the moral high ground.
     
  4. Liberty
    Offline

    Liberty Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,058
    Thanks Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    colorado
    Ratings:
    +548
    i love how people say revenue as code word for taxes. makes me chuckle.
     
  5. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    The net result would still be a $250 billion increase in revenue over 10 years

    Do the math. That's $25 billion a year.

    I guess you're just not up to speed. The most recent Executive Order is merely the latest installment of Obama's waste cutting program, which has already saved billions.

    So, playing politics is a "move" that is "better for the country that where we are now"?
     
  6. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,446
    Thanks Received:
    19,869
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,482
    $50 billion a year....imagine how much we would save if we didn't throw in that needless 7% tax cut ?
     
  7. Mr. Shaman
    Offline

    Mr. Shaman Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    23,892
    Thanks Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +819
    Gee.....how creative.

    How 'bout we try something that's (already).....


    We don't NEED another Republican Hu$tle!!!

    We DO need to do what we KNOW works!!!!
     
  8. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Guess you didn't read this part:

    " Another $40 billion in new revenue would come from changing the formula for adjusting the tax brackets for inflation. And another $200 billion more would come from a variety of other things, all scored on a static basis by the Joint Tax Committee. IOW, the additional revenue could be more but not less. "

    $250 billion + $40 billion + $200 billion + whatever extra they get from a better economy.

    LOL, you really think Obama's latest exec order has already saved billions? You're fuckin' nuts man. For Christ's sakes, the repubs gave up new revenue and you think that's playing politics? You got any idea what that'll cost any repub running for office in next year's primaries? You think the dems aren't playing politics here? Like I said, you got no room to bitch, the GOP offered more revenue and the lib/dems rejected it. Try taking that to the voters next year.
     
  9. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Do you really think the 1993 tax hikes were responsible for the economic growth in the 1990s? Anyone who thinks that is totally out of their fuckin' mind.
     
  10. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    *Facepalm* You're counting the dollars twice.

    No, you're not paying attention. His latest EO was the most recent step in an overall plan he is implementing to reduce the cost of government functions. It has already saved about $8.5 billion, and his latest EO is expected to save billions more.

    Here it is. You're measuring it in terms of what the political impact will be. The GOP bitched at the Democrats when they offered comparable amounts in deficit reduction a few months ago during the debt ceiling impasse. Back then, they said it wasn't a serious attempt. But now, the amount is somehow a serious attempt? That's playing politics.

    Actually, if you'd been paying attention, and read the other thread that's already discussing this, you'd see that I've already said that both sides are playing politics. That's the problem. Nobody is doing anything in any of this other than playing the same politics.

    I have plenty of room to complain. The government is still acting like a bunch of idiots, ALL OF THEM.

    I'm not running for office, in case you didn't know.
     

Share This Page