Overview of Our Policies
Individual Income Tax Policies
• Allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, but extend marriage relief, credits, and
incentives for children, families, and education
• Immediately rescind the upper-income tax cuts in December’s tax deal
• Index the AMT for inflation for a decade (the AMT patch is fully paid for)
• Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates)
• Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income
• Progressive estate tax (Sanders’ estate tax, repeal of Kyl-Lincoln)
• Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can reduce tax liability to 28%for high earners
• Replace the tax exclusion for interest on state and local bonds with a subsidy for the issuer
Corporate Tax Reform
• Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned
• Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies
• Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee
• Financial speculation tax (derivatives, foreign exchange)
• Reinstate Superfund taxes
Health Care
•Enact a public option
• Negotiate Rx payments with pharmaceutical companies
• CMS program integrity and other Medicare and Medicaid savings in the president’s budget
• Prevent a cut in Medicare physician payments for a decade (maintain doc fix)
Social Security
• Raise the taxable maximum on the employee side to 90% of earnings and eliminate the taxable maximum on the employer side
• Increase benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side
Defense Savings
• End overseas contingency operations emergency supplementals starting in Fiscal Year 2013,
providing $170 billion in FY2012 to fund redeployment, while saving more than $1.8 trillion
from current law spending levels over ten years.
• Reduce baseline defense spending by reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces,
procurement, and R&D programs
Comprehensive Jobs Program
• Invest $1.45 trillion in job creation, education, clean energy and broadband infrastructure,
housing, and R&D
• Infrastructure bank
• Surface transportation reauthorization bill ($213 billion)
Since we are having a new budget debate over the debt ceiling how do you all feel about the People's Budget? I firmly support it For the people worried about the debt it cuts the deficit by 5.6 trillion
only if you score taxes statically. which is to say, that it will work just like communism does - on paper.
Since we are having a new budget debate over the debt ceiling how do you all feel about the People's Budget? I firmly support it For the people worried about the debt it cuts the deficit by 5.6 trillion. Here is the link: Congressional Progressive Caucus : FY2012 Progressive Budget
It has some good aspects, but there's too much in here that I cannot agree with to vote "yes." Specifically their ideas toward corporate tax (which is already regressive, and would become even moreso under this plan) and their ideas toward itemized deductions (which they propose capping at 28%, thus adding to the complexity of the tax code, rather than just eliminating most of them entirely).
Why would you want to eliminate itemized deductions?
. . . thus adding to the complexity of the tax code, rather than just eliminating most of them entirely
You can't tax the gross income. It won't work. How many times do you have to told that?
Example:
a business earns a gross income of $100,000 a year.
The business spends approximately $80,000 on operating costs. (payroll, equipment, repairs, etc.)
That company falls into the 34% tax bracket, per the U.S. tax code, which means they will have to pay $34,000 in taxes with your new and improved tax code.
$80,000 + $34,000 = $114,000 and the company only makes $100,000 to begin with.
I would love for you to explain to us how that's supposed to be a good idea, unless your mission is to destroy private businesses, that is.
You've simplified the tax code, alright...there won't be anyone left to tax! :lamo
I thought you guys wanted a flat tax?
True flat rate income taxA true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no exceptions.
In an article titled The flat-tax revolution, dated April 14, 2005, The Economist argued as follows: If the goals are to reduce corporate welfare and to enable household tax returns to fit on a postcard, then a true flat tax best achieves those goals. The flat rate would be applied to all taxable income and profits without exception or exemption. It could be argued that under such an arrangement, no one is subject to a preferential or "unfair" tax treatment. No industry receives special treatment, large households are not advantaged at the expense of small ones, etc. Moreover, the cost of tax filing for citizens and the cost of tax administration for the government would be further reduced, as under a true flat tax only businesses and the self-employed would need to interact with the tax authorities.
Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I wasn't making my arguement above, which is why I didn'tadd anything but merely highlighted what I think was his stated argument. However, as long as there are a lot of things that can be called deductions, business effectively reduce their tax responsibility to the point of being meaningless,
like GE actually making money instead of paying taxes. There hs to be more control, and it does have to be simpler. How we do that? There is reasonable room for debate.
I thought you guys wanted a flat tax?
True flat rate income taxA true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no exceptions.
In an article titled The flat-tax revolution, dated April 14, 2005, The Economist argued as follows: If the goals are to reduce corporate welfare and to enable household tax returns to fit on a postcard, then a true flat tax best achieves those goals. The flat rate would be applied to all taxable income and profits without exception or exemption. It could be argued that under such an arrangement, no one is subject to a preferential or "unfair" tax treatment. No industry receives special treatment, large households are not advantaged at the expense of small ones, etc. Moreover, the cost of tax filing for citizens and the cost of tax administration for the government would be further reduced, as under a true flat tax only businesses and the self-employed would need to interact with the tax authorities.
Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I wasn't making my arguement above, which is why I didn'tadd anything but merely highlighted what I think was his stated argument. However, as long as there are a lot of things that can be called deductions, business effectively reduce their tax responsibility to the point of being meaningless, like GE actually making money instead of paying taxes. There hs to be more control, and it does have to be simpler. How we do that? There is reasonable room for debate.
I do agree with you partly... if you are talking about closing tax loop holes and such. If tax loops are closed completely and the system was revamp to be much simpler. Then i think at the very least we could cut the taxes by half without any lost immediate revenue from taxes.
I would love a flat tax...minus deductions. Not on the gross that would be totally idiotic, not to mention it would destroy private companies.
A business expense is a business expense and business expenses should be deductable.
GE paid income taxes. Stop believing the propaganda.
The truth about GE's tax bill - Fortune Features
Your leaps are neither his fault nor mine. Try to stay with what was actually said.
It has some good aspects, but there's too much in here that I cannot agree with to vote "yes." Specifically their ideas toward corporate tax (which is already regressive, and would become even moreso under this plan) and their ideas toward itemized deductions (which they propose capping at 28%, thus adding to the complexity of the tax code, rather than just eliminating most of them entirely).
Why would you want to eliminate itemized deductions?
Depends on how liberally you use that word. Golf balls for playing golf really shouldn't be a busniess expense, for example.
Maybe, but you miss the point. Regardles sof whether they paid no taxes, some taxes, or just less taxes, they still, according to your link, ". . . for decades has been an aggressive tax-minimizer, and could have averted this mess by explaining things simply and clearly to the Times and us and others. It either couldn't or wouldn't do so." To often people try to side track by saying they aren't as bad as first noted. This is rarely the actual point.
BTW, you should read your article more:
It's been 25 years since the last big tax reform legislation, which cut the corporate rate to 34% from 46% and eliminated a lot of deductions and tax breaks. But a quarter-century of pushing by businesses -- of which GE has been among the most aggressive -- has left us with both the lower tax rate (now 35%) and lots more deductions and shelters and other tax-reducing tactics than the 1986 legislation envisioned. GE's current idea of "reform" as expounded by John Samuels, the head of its tax department, is to cut the rate, but to allow some of GE's major tax-minimizing maneuvers to remain in place. It's hard to imagine anything like that happening now.
Samuels said at a tax forum in February that GE needs a tax system that will let it compete effectively with giant, foreign-based multinationals like Mitsubishi, Siemens (SI), and Phillips. However, their effective tax rates for earnings purposes last year were 40%, 31% and 26% respectively, compared with 7% for GE. (GE says its tax rate's been artificially low the past few years, and will soon rise.)
So, to compete with tax rates of 26 - 40%, they need less than 7%. And some actually buy that argument. :2dance:
However, as long as there are a lot of things that can be called deductions, business effectively reduce their tax responsibility to the point of being meaningless, like GE actually making money instead of paying taxes.
Regardles sof whether they paid no taxes, some taxes, or just less taxes, they still, according to your link, ". . . for decades has been an aggressive tax-minimizer, and could have averted this mess by explaining things simply and clearly to the Times and us and others. It either couldn't or wouldn't do so."
To often people try to side track by saying they aren't as bad as first noted.
I think that is all that is being said, no matter how inarticlualtely.
Why would you want to eliminate itemized deductions?
What about it? How much was your tax bill for 2010? Or rather, how much was your rebate?
GE's rate is probably at 7%, because they make estimated tax payments every month/quarter.
So, to compete with tax rates of 26 - 40%, they need less than 7%. And some actually buy that argument. :2dance:
Here's a snippet from, I suppose, the formal plan. I can't find that it ever made it to the legislative language stage. It's a Lib Wish List.
Here's the rest
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The CPC FY2012 Budget.pdf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?