PDA

View Full Version : Giuliani: Balance tax cut with tax cut


Alonzo
09-22-2007, 12:43 PM
RESTON, Va. - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Friday that the alternative minimum tax — which is expected to generate as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years — could be eliminated over the long term by balancing it out with even more tax cuts.

Giuliani's remarks prompted a bewildered response from his audience of technology executives. Both Republicans and Democrats said they assumed that the candidate must have misspoken as he responded to a question about the tax and its affect the middle class.

But a Giuliani spokeswoman said later that Giuliani meant what he said — tax cuts could replace the lost revenue from the AMT by boosting the overall economy.

"Giuliani is the quintessential supply-sider," said spokeswoman Maria Comella.

The alternative minimum tax, or AMT, was enacted in 1969 to ensure that a handful of wealthy taxpayers could not exploit a series of loopholes to avoid paying any income taxes.

But the tax was never indexed for inflation. It now applies to more than 4 million taxpayers and has been the target of tax reformers who say it will soon unfairly target middle-class taxpayers, if it hasn't already.

But eliminating the AMT would be extremely expensive, costing $100 billion in 2010 alone.

Giuliani told the 700-member audience of the Northern Virginia Technology Council that he wants to cap the tax, and perhaps eventually eliminate it altogether.

"Over time we can figure out how to eliminate it. ... If we were going to eliminate it, though, we'd have to balance it with additional tax cuts," Giuliani said, leaving confused expressions on his audience. "That might be by making the Bush tax cuts permanent."

He continued, saying he "wouldn't eliminate it until we had tax reform."

"I do think he may have misspoke," said Gerry Connolly, the Democratic chairman of Fairfax County's Board of Supervisors.

In other parts of his speech, Giuliani addressed the need to use technology to combat illegal immigration. He advocated a tamperproof national ID card to identify those who come into the country legally, and said sensors and other technology could create a "virtual fence" on the southern border to complement a physical fence used in other spots.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_taxes

NortheastCynic
09-22-2007, 07:59 PM
Whatever happened to good old fashion spending cuts?

I miss fiscal conservatism.

-NC

Labrocca
09-22-2007, 08:02 PM
Giuliani did a good job of tax control in NYC. He might do ok federally.

ViolaLee
09-22-2007, 10:52 PM
Did you even read the article? He wants to remove a 1969 tax law that prevents wealthy taxpayers from exploiting a series of loopholes to avoid paying any income taxes.

Helloooooooo!!!!! More tax cuts for the rich. More corporate welfare. F uck the poor, f uck the middle class. Giuliani is just another neocon. Our country can't survive another neocon.

NortheastCynic
09-23-2007, 06:03 PM
In what way does allowing 'rich' people to keep more of their money 'fuck' the middle class or the poor?

-NC

Alonzo
09-23-2007, 06:15 PM
Who pays for the programs to the poor?

NortheastCynic
09-23-2007, 07:14 PM
As far as I know, everyone. By claiming that 'allowing' someone to keep their money 'fucks' over someone else, you are saying that that someone else has a 'right' to another's money. I don't subscribe to that theory.

-NC

Labrocca
09-23-2007, 07:22 PM
Did you even read the article? He wants to remove a 1969 tax law that prevents wealthy taxpayers from exploiting a series of loopholes to avoid paying any income taxes.

Helloooooooo!!!!! More tax cuts for the rich. More corporate welfare. F uck the poor, f uck the middle class. Giuliani is just another neocon. Our country can't survive another neocon.


The rich spend money that pushes the economy. I would rather the rich create jobs and spend money in the USA on luxury items than giving to our government to spend on the military budget.

Helloooooooo!!!!!
Helloooooooo!!!!!
Helloooooooo!!!!!
Helloooooooo!!!!!

Your outlook is a socialist one. I prefer capitalism anyday over socialism.

Alonzo
09-23-2007, 10:40 PM
As far as I know, everyone. By claiming that 'allowing' someone to keep their money 'fucks' over someone else, you are saying that that someone else has a 'right' to another's money. I don't subscribe to that theory.

-NC


You support taxation. You support the taking of money from one person to benefit society, even if they receive no benefit themselves.

The difference between you and me is the line of what is and isn't acceptable.

NortheastCynic
09-23-2007, 10:46 PM
You should make very sure that I do believe something if you plan on telling me that I believe it, Zo. I do not believe in taxation. I wouldn't be too much of an anarcho-capitalist if I did.

-NC

Alonzo
09-23-2007, 10:57 PM
Northeast, you have told me previously that you support some taxation. If that's changed then I have no way of knowing.

ViolaLee
09-24-2007, 06:53 AM
Did you even read the article? He wants to remove a 1969 tax law that prevents wealthy taxpayers from exploiting a series of loopholes to avoid paying any income taxes.

Helloooooooo!!!!! More tax cuts for the rich. More corporate welfare. F uck the poor, f uck the middle class. Giuliani is just another neocon. Our country can't survive another neocon.


The rich spend money that pushes the economy. I would rather the rich create jobs and spend money in the USA on luxury items than giving to our government to spend on the military budget.

Helloooooooo!!!!!
Helloooooooo!!!!!
Helloooooooo!!!!!
Helloooooooo!!!!!

Your outlook is a socialist one. I prefer capitalism anyday over socialism.
No, it's not a socialist one. I'm against subsidizing the oil companies and letting the big corps have tax loopholes so they get to pay less taxes than the regular working stiff.

I'm against factory farms getting subsidized while family farms go under.

I'm against outsourcing US jobs so the CEO can be a multi-billionaire instead of just a millionaire. I'm for Americans building cars, computers, children's toys, tech support, etc....I'm for Americans earning a living wage so one parent can support the family, buy a house and two cars and send the kids to college while the other parent stays home to raise the kids.

That was possible 25 years ago.

It's just about impossible today.

And the reason is, that the rich are getting all the breaks and the middle class is barely scratching by, because of loopholes and corporate welfare.

Giuliani wants to make it worse, not better.

Labrocca
09-24-2007, 07:03 AM
I have a house, 2 cars, and 4 kids plus only my wife works. Not impossible at all. People 25 years ago didn't send their kids to college more than today.

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=33

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/youthindicators/Indicators.asp?PubPageNumber=22

Total college enrollment rates of 18- to 24-year-olds have risen over the past 3 decades. This increase in enrollment is partly because of the increase in the enrollment rates of 18- to 24- year-olds during the 1980s (from 26 percent in 1980 to 32 percent in 1990), as well as the enrollment rate increase during the 1990s through 2003 (38 percent). The enrollment rate for females increased from 20 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2003. The enrollment rates for males decreased between 1970 and 1980 (32 percent and 26 percent) and then increased to 34 percent in 2003. In 2003, 42 percent of White, 32 percent of Black, and 23 percent of Hispanic 18-to 24-year-olds were enrolled in college.

Facts just don't support your opinion. You can't just make stuff up here. Today MORE kids go to college than 25 years ago. Also the middle class aren't broke by a long shot...their biggest problem is simply household debt. Yes..that's right..they spend too much money on credit cards living it up.

Viola you have continued to show you can't debate when it comes to fiscal facts.

I'm against factory farms getting subsidized while family farms go under

So better to save a single family than a factory farm that might employ hundreds of people? Great logic there...but I don't think we should subsidize anyone...family or factory.

The goal of a business is to make money...it should NOT be the goal of a government.