The ongoing discussions about reducing the deficit have made me think a lot of Norquist, and your first thread about him. It seems to me like the
logical outcome would be allowing for the Bush tax cuts to expire, probably with an increase on the income that qualifies one as wealthy. Right now I
think these tax cuts effect those with 250K+, I think they'll bump that to 500K, I would also hope that they close some loopholes, as Romney had
promoted. I don't think giving to charity should be an act that makes one immune from paying taxes. Do both, pay taxes and give to charity.
The funny thing is that these "tax increases" are actually a retraction of tax reductions. Really not an increase at all. Still, Norquist has stated
that allowing them to expire would be a violation of the pledge. That is nonsense. That precedent would leave lawmakers in the inflexible position of
only being able to lower tax rates, which is a good idea in a good economy, and never being able to go back to the status quo when more benefits are
needed for the poor and unemployed.
ETA: So, hopefully a lot of Republicans would sign on to such an approach and the public would agree with the decision (as most polled said they
would). Then, Norquist will be left complaining and looking like an idiot who is out of touch with popular opinion.
I'm hoping that they can come to an agreement in December, or at the worst early-mid January. The agreement I'd like to see would be Bush cuts expire,
more limits on deductions (geared toward wealthy and corporate tax loopholes), and a good first step in reducing spending. It'd be nice to see the
next budget somewhere in the 500 billion deficit range, that'd be a great step toward balancing.
The most important thing of all is for the economy to continue recovering, so the government will take in more income tax and spend less on
benefits.
ETA more: Just came across this
story from Bloomberg.
In short, there’s more than one way to skin a fat cat. Theoretically, you can reverse-engineer a tax code raising almost any amount of money you
want -- and with almost any distribution of the burden you want -- without touching the top tax rate. Politically, of course, it might not be so
easy.
None of this changes the fact that it’s possible to make the tax code more progressive without raising rates. Or that Boehner is begging for a deal
that could be labeled tax reform, not a tax increase. Close the loopholes, enjoy the revenue, and keep the top rate steady. Or, what the heck, close
some more loopholes, lower the top tax rate, and still have enough to throw at the national debt.
The article talks about how Republican policy makers have found a loophole around the Norquist pledge, which ironically is closing loopholes in the
tax code.
We don’t believe, as Obama’s critics do, that the president wants a tax increase simply to soak the rich. We believe he wants a tax increase
to raise the money needed to run the government, and to do so as fairly and efficiently as possible.
At least, we want to believe that. Norquist reiterated his humble brag this week about how he has no power to release members of Congress from their
promise. “The pledge is to the American people,” he said. Which makes the task all the more urgent: Mr. President, cut a deal with Boehner before
the Norquist monster fully awakes.
The article, titled " Grover Norquist's gift to Obama," relays that Norquist himself has no power to recall a congressman for violating his pledge.
For years the pledge has been a GOP election tactic, but with more peope becoming educated about US deficit/debt issues, we may be seeing a reversal
where not violating the pledge would be detrimental to a candidate. The majority are in favor of some form of revenue increase for the gov,
particularly ones that target the wealthy.
edit on 11/16/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
