Thread: the mighty GOP on debt commision make thar offer!

To go way, way back to basics, how does anyone within the guidelines of the universally-heralded Golden Rule acquire a right to tax someone else? And if I do not have a right to tax you, how can I logically delegate a right I don't have to a third party, like a Congresscritter? I don't expect an answer, just sayin'. (BTW I do know the "social contract" arguments of Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Rawls, and others, and they just don't compute.)

The Democrats are deceiving here. Yes, some rich people would pay less in taxes, but the revenue gains would mean more rich people would pay more. Democrats inserted all those loopholes so they themselves would never have to pay high tax rates. Take away the loopholes and lower the top rate to 25%, and many Democratic politicians would see their tax bills double.

What the Democrats want is to raise rates, then as their donors complain, they'll carve out exemptions.

Originally Posted by adaher

The Democrats are deceiving here. Yes, some rich people would pay less in taxes, but the revenue gains would mean more rich people would pay more. Democrats inserted all those loopholes so they themselves would never have to pay high tax rates. Take away the loopholes and lower the top rate to 25%, and many Democratic politicians would see their tax bills double.

What the Democrats want is to raise rates, then as their donors complain, they'll carve out exemptions.

Are you sure it was just the Democrats that inserted the loopholes and not both parties?

Both parties definitely do it, but Democrats do it more, for a couple of reasons; First, a tax credit is almost as good as spending if you want to incentivize certain activities. Second, Democrats and their donors don't like to pay high taxes, so when tax rates go up, they have to add a lot of new exemptions to make sure that only their political adversaries' taxes go up.

Republican donors of course also lobby for tax breaks, and also get them when Republicans have the power to grant them. Democrats constantly seek to close those particular loopholes, because those loopholes are for "bad" people, like oil companies, while their loopholes are for "good" people, like lawyers.

Originally Posted by adaher

Both parties definitely do it, but Democrats do it more, for a couple of reasons; First, a tax credit is almost as good as spending if you want to incentivize certain activities. Second, Democrats and their donors don't like to pay high taxes, so when tax rates go up, they have to add a lot of new exemptions to make sure that only their political adversaries' taxes go up.

Republican donors of course also lobby for tax breaks, and also get them when Republicans have the power to grant them. Democrats constantly seek to close those particular loopholes, because those loopholes are for "bad" people, like oil companies, while their loopholes are for "good" people, like lawyers.

Since you stated that with such authority I can only assume that you have studied these loopholes and will have no problem linking to some of these Republican instituted loopholes that the Democrats have closed or tried to close. I also assume that you have some sort of running tally on the number of loopholes instituted by each party. I would really be interested in seeing this info. I try to learn something new everyday and this would give me an early start today.

Originally Posted by wooyarn

Since you stated that with such authority I can only assume that you have studied these loopholes and will have no problem linking to some of these Republican instituted loopholes that the Democrats have closed or tried to close. I also assume that you have some sort of running tally on the number of loopholes instituted by each party. I would really be interested in seeing this info. I try to learn something new everyday and this would give me an early start today.

Nothing so scientific, although I can give you an example of the first thing you asked for: oil company tax subsidies. Democrats have been wanting to put an end to these for a long time, primarily because oil companies provide jobs mainly in red states and donate primarily to Republican officeholders. Democrats do not feel nearly as hostile to ethanol and coal interests.

Now as for a tally, that's nearly impossible given the complexity of the tax code. However, watch the Presidential campaign carefully, especially when the candidates discuss tax policy. Obama will be talking about tax credits for dozens of things. Romney will be talking about tax simplification. It will be pretty clear which side keeps adding loopholes to the tax code. But if you don't want to wait for the future, read about the tax proposals Al Gore and George W. Bush pushed in 2000. We had a big surplus and what was going to be done with it was a big issue. Both Bush and Gore favored tax cuts, but Bush just wanted to cut rates. Gore didn't want to cut rates at all. Instead, he proposed a zillion and one new exemptions.

Here is a summary of Gore's tax plan from 2000:

CTJ Preliminary Analysis of Gore Tax Plan

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

“The Republicans’ insistence on no new taxes was not working,” said a Democratic senator close to the negotiations. “So Republicans have now offered a tiny bit of tax revenue. To be serious, they must offer much more.”

Reposted from a different thread, my response:

Originally Posted by C-B-M

It's interesting how "compromise" is "pragmatic" for Republicans. Ever see how the Democrats compromise? It'll be like:

Democrats: "I want a 30% tax increase and we'll spend $5 trillion more."
Republicans: "We refuse!"
Democrats: "OK, then let's make it a 27% tax increase and we'll spend $4.5 trillion more?"
Republicans: "OK!"
Analysts: "See how the Democrats always are open to compromise?!?! OMG, orgasm time!"

Four years later ...

Republicans: "I want a 5% tax cut and we'll spend $2 million less."
Democrats: "We refuse!"
Republicans: "OK, how about a --"
Democrats: "We'll go with a 10% tax raise and we'll spend $3 trillion more."
Republicans: "Uh ..."
Analysts: "See how the Republicans never compromise? They're like Hitler!! When will they kill Jews next??"
Republicans: "OK, OK, let's do it."
Analysts: "They're still going to kill Jews!"
Republicans: "WTF?"
Democrats: "Gay marriage now?"

Originally Posted by adaher

Nothing so scientific, although I can give you an example of the first thing you asked for: oil company tax subsidies. Democrats have been wanting to put an end to these for a long time, primarily because oil companies provide jobs mainly in red states and donate primarily to Republican officeholders. Democrats do not feel nearly as hostile to ethanol and coal interests.

Now as for a tally, that's nearly impossible given the complexity of the tax code. However, watch the Presidential campaign carefully, especially when the candidates discuss tax policy. Obama will be talking about tax credits for dozens of things. Romney will be talking about tax simplification. It will be pretty clear which side keeps adding loopholes to the tax code. But if you don't want to wait for the future, read about the tax proposals Al Gore and George W. Bush pushed in 2000. We had a big surplus and what was going to be done with it was a big issue. Both Bush and Gore favored tax cuts, but Bush just wanted to cut rates. Gore didn't want to cut rates at all. Instead, he proposed a zillion and one new exemptions.

Here is a summary of Gore's tax plan from 2000:

CTJ Preliminary Analysis of Gore Tax Plan

You can't really count proposals as they didn't happen. Although some of the proposals from your link could have been good and helped the average person, some of them not so good. I have no problem with doing away with subsidies. But you would have to do away with all of them, Oil,Farm,ethanol the whole bunch.

But to say that one side is better or worse then the other is just being dishonest. The main difference between the Reps. and Dems. is the letter, the rest is pretty much the same.

It's not a matter of better, of course Democrats think they are helping out deserving people. But they do it because the tax rates are onerous in the first place, thus creating the need for exemptions. Gore's plan would have helped a lot of low income and middle income people. The Bush tax cuts also helped, and helped a lot more people, because EVERYONE got a tax cut. Whereas with the Gore plan, you only got a tax cut if you were part of a group that Democrats liked, or if you were doing something Democrats wanted you to do.

I don't think you can say that Republicans or Democrats are worse in the aggregate, but when it comes to corruption, they have different approaches because they have different constituencies with different wants. Saying they are both the same is facile.

And while proposals aren't actions, they do matter. If one side wants more complexity and higher rates and the other side wants simplicity and lower rates, it's pretty clear that we have a major policy difference. And when they govern, they act accordingly. The last major effort at tax reform was spearheaded by a Republican President, and every single major tax cut passed by Republicans has involved simply lowering rates, while Democrats have primarily cut taxes by increasing the number of exemptions.

It should also be noted that the last major tax reform, 1986, simplified the system a great deal. So what happened as soon as Democrats won power again? They added new brackets. And with those new brackets, they added a ton of new exemptions. Can't have Congressmen paying higher taxes.

Politics basicaly stinks. Its CYA and recommendations too small and far off to change anything.

If the Super Committee comes up with anything, it will be too litle too late. And nothing before the 2012 election(wonder why?).

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

hail me friends!

as our nation hurtles towards the deadline fer the debt commision to strike an accord, the GOP appears to hath made thar compromise. in an effort to meet the democrats on the committee halfway, they hath agreed to tax cuts...fer the wealthiest americans 'o our land.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us...l?ref=politics

although i think it be commendable that senate GOP folk on the committee finally decided that compromise was the proper course to sail, how low do ye all think they wanted to lower the taxes on wealthiest americans, yet were driven back by them hard headed democrats? 25%? 20%? 9%? less?

- MeadHallPirate

Your comments are misleading. In fact, what the Republicans proposed was:

-raising taxes by 200-300bn over 10 years by
-eliminating tax breaks that primarily benefit upper-income households
-adding fees charged for government services
-higher Medicare premiums for high-income people
-sales of federal lands and surplus federal property
-oil drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
-a new measure of inflation that would put some people in higher tax brackets and make more income subject to taxation

The lowering of the income tax rate does not offset the additional taxes from these other sources, which means the rich end up paying more tax, not less. Im against it though. We should make no changes to taxes until we deal with excessive spending. The supersecret committe is charge with finding 120 bn a year in deficit reduction. That is easy to find by cutting spending. Eliminating the education dept alone would do that.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Your comments are misleading. In fact, what the Republicans proposed was:

-raising taxes by 200-300bn over 10 years by
-eliminating tax breaks that primarily benefit upper-income households
-adding fees charged for government services
-higher Medicare premiums for high-income people
-sales of federal lands and surplus federal property
-oil drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
-a new measure of inflation that would put some people in higher tax brackets and make more income subject to taxation

ahoy Jviehe,

i disagree that they be misleadin' matey.

thar will be some minor closin' 'o tax breaks, but any revenues raised by the closin' 'o them tax breaks will be more than offset by lowerin' the rate to 28%, in regards to the nation's wealthiest folk. regardin' yer other observations, i've no doubt that the GOP can and will happily find other revenues by sellin' off federally protected lands to various special interests and "drill baby drillin'" in the ANWR, just to pay fer lowerin' taxes on the wealthiest 'o the wealthy.

- MeadHallPirate