GOP offers $500 billion in new revenue

[Wiseacre]

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?

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

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.

 

[Liberty]

i love how people say revenue as code word for taxes. makes me chuckle.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Actually, it's about $50 billion a year.

The net result would still be a $250 billion increase in revenue over 10 years

Do the math. That's $25 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.

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.

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.

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

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

$50 billion a year....imagine how much we would save if we didn't throw in that needless 7% tax cut ?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Gee.....how creative.

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

....PROVEN TO WORK!!!!!

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

1993 Deficit Reduction​

AUGUST 9, 1999​

"Suddenly, it seems everyone in Washington is singing the virtues of retiring the national debt. For two decades, as deficits mounted, it was a nonissue. But the prospect of surpluses has economists and policymakers thinking the unthinkable: erasing the $3.8 trillion pile of federal IOUs held by the public."

Reducing The Federal Debt​

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

We DO need to do what we KNOW works!!!!
​

 

[Wiseacre]

Actually, it's about $50 billion a year.

The net result would still be a $250 billion increase in revenue over 10 years

Do the math. That's $25 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

Gee.....how creative.

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

....PROVEN TO WORK!!!!!

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

1993 Deficit Reduction​

AUGUST 9, 1999​

"Suddenly, it seems everyone in Washington is singing the virtues of retiring the national debt. For two decades, as deficits mounted, it was a nonissue. But the prospect of surpluses has economists and policymakers thinking the unthinkable: erasing the $3.8 trillion pile of federal IOUs held by the public."

Reducing The Federal Debt​

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

We DO need to do what we KNOW works!!!!
​

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.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

*Facepalm* You're counting the dollars twice.

LOL, you really think Obama's latest exec order has already saved billions? You're fuckin' nuts man.

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.

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?

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.

You think the dems aren't playing politics here?

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.

Like I said, you got no room to bitch, the GOP offered more revenue and the lib/dems rejected it.

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

Try taking that to the voters next year.

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

 

[Care4all]

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.

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.

the bush tax cuts in 2001, did not see tax revenue increases from the level of the year 2000, until 2005.

So what exactly is PROVEN as you "say" regarding tax cuts generating more revenue?

If no bush tax cuts had been given at all, the tax revenues for the gvt would have gone up just by the increase in gdp each year...yet after tax cuts, for 3-4 years we took in a huge amount LESS in revenues, Wise acre?

 

[Trajan]

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.

can you please post the results ala the orders to trim in those depts please?

 

[Trajan]

I posted this this morning.......for some detail...

Republicans offer tax deal to break debt impasse; Democrats dismiss it

*shrugs*. The Wash. Post created the title, I didn’t, but it appears apt.

I think its time that a few facts are acknowledged as the ‘super’ committee gets closer to not doing what its charged with doing ( note that this comm.. started out s a dem. idea waaaaay back, was dropped, then McConnell stole it and ran with it, I never thought it a good idea in any event, we already have a ‘super ‘ –comm.. , its called congress).

Facts-

-There has been no budget approved and implemented by congress in over 1000 days, that’s just short of 3 years, despite the 1974 process which had been here to fore followed.
- a budget was proposed, voted upon and passed by the house in August, no action in the senate.


The process has gone so far down the rabbit hole;

New legislation co-sponsored by Sens. Ben Cardin (D., Md.) and Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) would go one step further. The Washington Post reports:


This is how badly broken Congress’s budget process has become: A Democrat and a Republican in the Senate have jointly proposed the radical idea that if Congress can’t come up with a budget by April 15 — a legal deadline now routinely blown — the national legislature would simply shut down.No other bills would be considered.

No post offices named, no judges confirmed. Congress wouldn’t even be able to abandon Washington and go home on recess.

“It’d be a pretty good incentive to get things done,” said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who is sponsoring the bill with Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.).

Unreal.


- 22 plans for job creation/sppt./ activity have been passed, many WITH bi-partisan sppt. in the House over the last 2 months, no action in the senate



Which brings me to the latest, and the real subject of the thread, there was someone yelling uncle ( to an extent) yesterday.

You can read the Wapo story here, http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z4, which though is short on grind it out specifics, some of whose points need to be made and recognized;


- The offer was to raise revenues by 500 Billion, a major sea change in the GOP stance

- There would be a myriad of deduction eliminations in exchange for a drop in rates, i.e.; individual rates drop from 35% to 28%, capital gains and dividends stay at 15% and the 35% estate tax would remain as is.

- This was the here to fore magic elixir that members of both parties said they would sppt. as the most even handed way of getting some growth going by flattening thereby expanding the base, which improves the share of fed GDP revenue by upping the size of that share in real dollars.


- After hearing the proposal the Dems demanded that these tax changes also be statically scored—which assumes no revenue gains from economic growth, please pause for a moment and consider what that means.

- The cuts offered by the dems. equal less than $1 per $1.50 of revenue gain. This is below by a factor of 2, what the Bowles-Simpson commission proposed and frankly, is not even a serious counter-proposal, and- entitlements are off the table, as is the ObamaCare 3.8% payroll increase next year.



This is a significant concession, no matter which way you slice it ( one I am not totally on board with either).

I think the reps are scared of the cuts that will have to go into effect if no deal is done and, being cast as the folks who won’t bend to any compromise what so ever.

I am happy to see the Washington Post at least acknowledges that this is not so at least, in this case.


If the dems don’t come back with some more cuts; like the drivers of the car that is taking us over the cliff- entitlements, they aren’t for real and perhaps they are set on making Obamas charges of the ‘do nothing congress’, no matter how ridiculous as one wing of congress is democratic, , appear true.

 

[Trajan]

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

*Facepalm* You're counting the dollars twice.

LOL, you really think Obama's latest exec order has already saved billions? You're fuckin' nuts man.

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.

Like I said, you got no room to bitch, the GOP offered more revenue and the lib/dems rejected it.

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

Try taking that to the voters next year.

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

I'm confused, obama himself and his original debt commission have all said that rescinding deductions and dropping rates, will expand gdp, and, most importantly the % of the fed revenue from that gdp will be larger, the idea is to grow the pie there fore the % taken is higher in dollars via that tax revenue and the rich overwhelmingly use deductions as compared ot the middle and lower sects of taxpayers......

is that now wrong?

 

[occupied]

About $180 billion of that would come from changing the inflation calculation for benefits, not sure what benefits are being referred to.

========

Sounds to me like they are proposing screwing with the SS COLA. If it is a republican plan there is one thing you can be sure of, it shifts the tax burden downward.