A number of wealthy Republicans, bucking their party’s orthodoxy, say they would be willing to pay higher taxes as part of a comprehensive plan to get the nation’s finances on track.
These Republicans, most of them supporters of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, say they still want to see substantial cuts in federal spending, but believe higher taxes are needed to help bring down the deficit and nation’s ballooning $16 trillion debt, which now exceeds the annual output of the US economy.
Comments
Mortgage interest rates are the most likely exemptions to be targetted. Yet they are too popular to cut. And if cut for only the wealthy, will they bring in enough money.
Interstesting that Landry wants a plan like that Obama proposed but without Obama. Sounds personal but more likely is a fear of Obama going after schedule D instead of schedule A. That would mean an increase in capital gains and the financieirs wouldn't be happy. That would mean that money earned while you sleep is taxed more than money earned from work. Anything wrong with going after schedule D?
This comment has been removed.
This story is misleading. Mitt Romney is not against raising more tax revenue to reduce the federal deficit. He is simply against raising tax RATES on more affluent taxpayers in the name of fairness, as Obama wants to do. Cutting tax rates on all income groups would stimulate job creation and income growth. That would tend to increase federal revenue. Closing tax loopholes on the affluent, as Romney proposes, would also tend to raise federal revenue and lower the deficit.
I'm happy to pay more- just as long as the top 3 areas of spend are addressed and cleansed of waste:
1. Military (24% of 2013 budget)
2. Healthcare (22%)
3. Pensions (22%)
68% currently going to these 3 programs. I recall Romney saying something about giving the navy more ships?
Anyone, at any time, can write a check to the Federal Government. Not just at tax time.
No one, at no time, needs to file deductions. When filing their taxes
Now if you are whinging about where the money goes as the reason you do not write larger checks or do not stop deducting, there is your built-in enabling excuse.
Point one (made by a number of earlier posters): Nothing is stopping the rich from paying more now. Point two: America is now the land of the free and the home of the tax accountant. The surest way to (i) raise more revenue to pay off the debt, (ii) reduce the cost of government, and, yes, "progressives" (iii) insure that "the rich" pay their fair share, would be to scrap (not reform) the current mystifyingly complex IRS Code and replace it (not augment it) with a simpler and fairer code that taxes spending, and that does so at the point of purchase. (The new Code would, of course, allow for an appropriate per person annual deduction for food, clothing and shelter.) The pornographic complexity of the current Code favors the rich, the powerful, and the dishonest. It disfavors the ordinary and the honest. Americans who cannot afford to hire a battery of tax accountants and tax lawyers should have the same advantages as those who can. A simple tax on spending would level the playing field and unleash a volcano of economic activity. The underground economy would evaporate. The base would expand. Revenues would increase. But most importantly, when every consumer saw at the point of purchase just what his government was costing, there would be an earth-shaking clamor for smaller and more efficient government in which even "progressives" might join.
How about we take a real in-depth look at the members of Congress; yes both sides of the aisle, and what they are paying in taxes? Tax law in this country is obscene. And the folks who make the laws and write the regulations are at the root of it!
How intersting all of these rich white guys are willing to pay more if Obama is gone??? Great country ....Lets get it right and fair that's all...
A little racist today are we? What difference does it make what color these people are. Smarten up!
This comment has been removed.
· Only talking with and discussing the viewpoints on taxes of the Super-Rich is Disingenuous . Warren Buffet, worth $50B , does not speak for all of us. Not even close. This is a Red Herring and you are too smart not to see it. So am I!
· Maybe adding some FACTS to your story, Ms. Healy, would have led to balance instead of what came off as a typical Boston Globe Partisan Class Warfare piece
· http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/mar/06/jim-renacci/jim-renacci-says-top-50-percent-pay-nearly-all-inc/
· "The top 1 percent (of income earners) paid 36.7 percent (of the taxes). The top 5 percent paid 58.7 percent, and the top 10 percent paid 70.5 percent. The top 25 percent pay 87.3 percent of the taxes paid in this country. The top 50 percent pay 97.7 percent. So, it’s interesting when you hear the story that the wealthy need to pay more of their share."
· To not discuss S Corporations in your articles is just plain negligent. S Corporations drive this economy (as Mr. Romney has spelled out) and pay the brunt of the individual taxes in the US as they are taxed at the highest Individual Rate. Your candidate for President considers us “Rich”.
Full Disclosure: I own a Small Business, file as an S Corp, pay the highest rates and plow profits back into my company in order to hire more well paid, well benefited employees. To not discuss our plight is just typical Class Warfare Rhetoric that I expect from the Opinion pages but not the News/Business Pages. Raise the taxes on the “rich” ($200k-$@250K up which you categorize as “Rich”) is just a silly sound bite meant to energize those who are don’t understand the issues and circumstance (ie Democrats) of how Jobs are created. Unfortunately this article did nothing to dispel the nonsense put out by the Left.