Democrats look for up to $1 trillion in new tax revenues this year

[mocgator]

Ahh...yesss.... Taxing to prosperity... that always works... Something I said about a fiscal escape plan...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...nues-this-year

Democrats say they want to raise as much as $1 trillion in new revenues through tax reform later this year to balance Republican demands to slash mandatory spending.

Democratic leaders have had little time to craft a new position for their party since passing a tax deal Tuesday that will raise $620 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

The emerging consensus, however, is that the next installment of deficit reduction should reach $2 trillion and about half of it should come from higher taxes.
"We've resolved this issue. Look, we don't have this problem because we tax too little. We have it because we spend way, way too much,” McConnell said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

[Matthanuf06]

They need to have the guts to shut down the government. I hate to say it, but would they really be losing many votes by doing it? And besides, they should be caring more about the good of the nation than their poll numbers

[gator996]

So both of you are against tax reform?
Against closing loopholes & corporate subsidies?

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by gator996

So both of you are against tax reform?
Against closing loopholes & corporate subsidies?

I'm fine with that if it came with a drastic reduction in taxes and various fees. I do prefer a simple tax structure

[gator996]

The need for additional revenues is kinda contradictory to drastic reductions in taxes, no?

I have no problem with tax reform without drastic tax reductions until specific deficit & national debt targets are reached.

How about eliminating loopholes until there are no annual deficits for a couple of years and the debt is below $8T?

At that point, lower the income tax across the board drastically and keep the loopholes closed.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by gator996

The need for additional revenues is kinda contradictory to drastic reductions in taxes, no?

I have no problem with tax reform without drastic tax reductions until specific deficit & national debt targets are reached.

How about eliminating loopholes until there are no annual deficits for a couple of years and the debt is below $8T?

At that point, lower the income tax across the board drastically and keep the loopholes closed.

There isn't a need for more revenues. What programs need more revenues? Point out the shortfalls?

The problem is clearly on the spending end. Our taxes are already extremely high.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to what you mentioned. I'd prefer an approach to increased freedom than not, but getting our finances in order needs to be priority #1.

[Claygator]

Our problem is out of control government growth and uncontrolled spending both on the military and social welfare programs. Shrink the government and the problem goes away.

[g8orbill]

democrats and true tax reform is an oxymoron

until we get spending under control and get rid of baseline budgeting everything else is just smoke and mirrors

[gator996]

More revenue doesn't have to be directed to programs.

Target the revenues to paying down the longterm debt, reduce the use of debt funding for certain programs, there certainly are needs for more revenue when we're $16T in debt.

Our taxes are not extremely high...by what measure are they historically high?

Deficit/debt reduction would continue if you instituted what I propose.


Heck, I'm for taking some of those "extra" revenues and creating a government waste watchdog which would review all programs annually and could shrink program budgets if those program directors cannot justify their expenditures over time.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

democrats and true tax reform is an oxymoron

until we get spending under control and get rid of baseline budgeting everything else is just smoke and mirrors

Republicans have enacted real tax reform?

Both parties give special interests tax preferences bil...


The day you come around to that idea will be when the problem can be fixed.

But keep it up...the republican party needs people who think like you to keep their smoke & mirrors rhetoric alive.

[108]

we need revenue after we have had tax cuts and trillions of spending the last 12 years on the nations CC

[ATLitigator]

Originally Posted by 108

we need revenue after we have had tax cuts and trillions of spending the last 12 years on the nations CC

why cant a leftist add the phrase "and trillions in spendings cuts" to this equation

do you honestly believe you can raise enough in additional taxes to keep spending at our current pace?

[CharlestonGator]

Spending is THE issue......and everyone knows it (except those who keep cheering for their team)....our liabilities are rising exponentially.....and no amount of tax revenue can come close to keeping up. As Bill and I said while GWB was still in office....he stunk at spending control too. But this current admin. has gone ballistic even though they said they'd work toward balancing the budget. Just like the transparency pledge, et. al.....all empty promises never to be fulfilled.

$16.5T and counting
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[108]

Originally Posted by ATLitigator

why cant a leftist add the phrase "and trillions in spendings cuts" to this equation

do you honestly believe you can raise enough in additional taxes to keep spending at our current pace?

it's implied with me

i have no problem with certain spending cuts....others i do

[JerseyGator01]

We have so many different types of taxes right now that few politicians have a grasp of all of them. When politicians say taxes aren't that high or haven't gone up they're often only referring to income taxes while ignoring property taxes, sales taxes etc. various fees etc.

[ATLitigator]

Originally Posted by 108

it's implied with me

i have no problem with certain spending cuts....others i do

it cant be implied, because I could cut spending so that we would not need any revenue...

saying we need more revenue, means we dont have enough to pay our bills now, or you anticipate spending to go up in the future....

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

There isn't a need for more revenues. What programs need more revenues? Point out the shortfalls?

The problem is clearly on the spending end. Our taxes are already extremely high.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to what you mentioned. I'd prefer an approach to increased freedom than not, but getting our finances in order needs to be priority #1.

On either 60 mins or NBC news [I don't recall which] last night, the statement was made that the interest on $16 trillion is $140 million an hour.

Multiply $140 million by 24 and then multiply that figure by 365. The deficit cannot be contained [much less reduced] by additional taxes.

More taxes on the "rich" sounds good to some people, but is merely a distraction from the real problem. The real problem is encapsulated in the preceding paragraph.

These are the questions:

1. Do we really want to decrease the deficit?

2. Do we really want to save our children and grandchildren from economic ruin based on our selfish unwillingness to stop spending?

3. Do we really believe that the extraordinary debt which we have amassed will not become due at some point?

4. Do our so-called representatives have the courage to cut spending without being first concerned about what it will do to them?

5. How many businesses will survive if they continually spend vast amounts of money more than they make?

6. Is the extraodinary deficit [soon to be $20 trillion] a problem for America, Americans and future generations or merely another useless excuse to point fingers at the other party without doing anything to solve the problem?

7. What will our children and grandchildren think of our selfish willingness to leave this problem for them to solve?

8. Will our children and grandchildren live better or worse than we do?

9. How will American history record the manner in which we handled this problem?

10. Do we have a moral obligation to our children and grandchildren to deal with this problem now?

11. If not, what obligation do we owe them?

12. How will we be remembered?

[gator996]

Originally Posted by ATLitigator

why cant a leftist add the phrase "and trillions in spendings cuts" to this equation

do you honestly believe you can raise enough in additional taxes to keep spending at our current pace?

Why can't republicans acknowledge that in 2011 Obama already agreed to $1.7T in spending cuts?


Republicans Conveniently Forget All the Cuts Obama's Already Made
Jonathan Cohn
November 29, 2012 | 11:49 pm

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...crease-boehner

But let’s focus on this claim, from Republicans, that Obama only wants to raise taxes and isn’t serious about spending cuts. Here’s an analysis from one senior Republican aide, as relayed to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:

The White House keeps saying it wants a ‘balanced approach’ but this offer is completely unbalanced and unrealistic. It calls for $1.6 trillion in tax hikes – all of that upfront – in exchange for only $400 billion in spending cuts that come later. Plus, the only entitlement changes they proposed come from the exact proposals in the President’s budget.

The trouble with this analysis is that it ignores history: As part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, Obama agreed to spending reductions of about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. If you count the interest, the savings is actually $1.7 trillion. Boehner should have no problem remembering the details of that deal: As Greg Sargent points out, Boehner at the time actually gloated about the fact that the deal was "all spending cuts."

And now, with this latest offer, Obama is proposing yet more spending reductions, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Add it up and it’s more than $2 trillion in spending cuts Obama has either signed into law or is endorsing now. That’s obviously greater than the $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue he’s seeking. (And that doesn't even take into account automatic cuts from the 2011 budget sequester, which Obama has proposed to defer, or savings from ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.) So, yes, Obama’s proposal is unbalanced—but not in the way Republicans seem to think. If Obama were proposing a truly balanced plan, he’d be calling for even more tax revenue or even less spending reduction.

Yes, I'm serious. As Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has explained, those cuts from the Budget Control Act will take discretionary spending (spending on agencies and programs that Congress must reauthorize every few years) as a share of gross domestic product down to its lowest level since early 1960s, when government first began keep tracking of it. You don’t have to believe government is a model of efficiency to believe that cuts of that magnitude are bound to reduce spending to the point that government services suffer. Meanwhile, solving our long-term fiscal problems will probably require even more revenue than Obama is seeking now. That is why some of us have suggested the ideal solution to the fiscal crisis would be to let all of the tax cuts lapse, allowing middle-class tax relief to continue only on a temporary basis, until the economy is stronger. (Kevin Drum recently floated a new and interesting proposal for how that could be done.)

[vangator1]

The deficit will never be cut. The people in power want that $140 million per hour. We just keep talking about it while they fatten their accounts.

[gator996]

That may well be true...all is already lost.

Then the #1 priority of the GOP is BS