Senator: GOP could accept tax hikes on very rich
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans would probably agree to higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans if it meant getting a chance to overhaul costly government entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, a GOP senator predicted Sunday.
The comments by Bob Corker of Tennessee - a fiscal conservative who has been gaining stature in the Senate as a pragmatic deal broker - puts new pressure on House Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders to rethink their long-held assertion that even the very rich shouldn't see their rates go up next year. GOP leaders have argued that the revenue gained by hiking the top two tax rates would be trivial to the deficit, and that any tax hike hurts job creation.
But Corker says insisting on that red line - especially since President Barack Obama won re-election after campaigning on raising tax rates on the wealthy - might not be wise.
"There is a growing group of folks looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end," Corker told "Fox News Sunday."
If Republicans agree to Obama's plan to increase rates on the top 2 percent of Americans, Corker added, "the focus then shifts to entitlements and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation."
Besides getting tax hikes through the Republican-dominated House, Corker's proposal faces another hurdle: Democrats haven't been receptive to GOP proposals on the entitlement programs. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Sunday was skeptical about proposals to increase the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. He said he doesn't see Congress addressing the complicated issue of Medicare overhaul in the three weeks remaining before the end of the year.
"I just don't think we can do it in a matter of days here before the end of the year," Durbin said. "We need to address that in a thoughtful way through the committee structure after the first of the year."
The clock is ticking to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff," when a combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts kick in at the beginning of the year. Negotiations are taking place primarily between Obama and the GOP's Boehner, whose party controls the House and comprises mostly hard-line fiscal conservatives who are holding fast to their position.
"No Republican wants to vote for a rate tax increase," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Added Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.: "I'm not sure there is support for the rate hikes. There is support for revenue by cleaning up the code."
But at least one House Republican has said there is another way. Rep. Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, has said Obama and Boehner should agree not to raise tax rates on the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates for top earners later. Cole said Sunday that most House Republicans would vote for that approach because it doesn't include a rate hike.
"You know, it's not waving a white flag to recognize political reality," Cole said.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., already has said he could support higher tax rates on upper incomes as part of a comprehensive plan to cut the federal deficit.
When asked Sunday what it would take to sign on to a tax rate increase, Coburn echoed Corker's comments by responding: "Significant entitlement reform." He quickly added, however, that he has estimated that such a tax rate increase would only affect about 7 percent of the deficit.
"Will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? Yes," Coburn said. "But the president's negotiating with the wrong people. He needs to be negotiating with our bondholders in China, because if we don't put a credible plan on the discussion, ultimately, we all lose."
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, partly by letting decade-old tax cuts on the country's highest earners expire at the end of the year. He would continue those Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples making above $250,000. The highest rates on top-paid Americans would rise from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent.
Boehner has offered $800 billion in new revenues to be raised by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks on upper-income people. The Republican plan would cut spending by $1.4 trillion, including by trimming annual increases in Social Security payments and raising the eligibility age for Medicare.
Hensarling and Coburn spoke on ABC's "This Week." Blackburn and Cole spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." Durbin spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The comments by Bob Corker of Tennessee - a fiscal conservative who has been gaining stature in the Senate as a pragmatic deal broker - puts new pressure on House Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders to rethink their long-held assertion that even the very rich shouldn't see their rates go up next year. GOP leaders have argued that the revenue gained by hiking the top two tax rates would be trivial to the deficit, and that any tax hike hurts job creation.
But Corker says insisting on that red line - especially since President Barack Obama won re-election after campaigning on raising tax rates on the wealthy - might not be wise.
"There is a growing group of folks looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end," Corker told "Fox News Sunday."
If Republicans agree to Obama's plan to increase rates on the top 2 percent of Americans, Corker added, "the focus then shifts to entitlements and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation."
Besides getting tax hikes through the Republican-dominated House, Corker's proposal faces another hurdle: Democrats haven't been receptive to GOP proposals on the entitlement programs. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Sunday was skeptical about proposals to increase the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. He said he doesn't see Congress addressing the complicated issue of Medicare overhaul in the three weeks remaining before the end of the year.
"I just don't think we can do it in a matter of days here before the end of the year," Durbin said. "We need to address that in a thoughtful way through the committee structure after the first of the year."
The clock is ticking to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff," when a combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts kick in at the beginning of the year. Negotiations are taking place primarily between Obama and the GOP's Boehner, whose party controls the House and comprises mostly hard-line fiscal conservatives who are holding fast to their position.
"No Republican wants to vote for a rate tax increase," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Added Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.: "I'm not sure there is support for the rate hikes. There is support for revenue by cleaning up the code."
But at least one House Republican has said there is another way. Rep. Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, has said Obama and Boehner should agree not to raise tax rates on the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates for top earners later. Cole said Sunday that most House Republicans would vote for that approach because it doesn't include a rate hike.
"You know, it's not waving a white flag to recognize political reality," Cole said.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., already has said he could support higher tax rates on upper incomes as part of a comprehensive plan to cut the federal deficit.
When asked Sunday what it would take to sign on to a tax rate increase, Coburn echoed Corker's comments by responding: "Significant entitlement reform." He quickly added, however, that he has estimated that such a tax rate increase would only affect about 7 percent of the deficit.
"Will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? Yes," Coburn said. "But the president's negotiating with the wrong people. He needs to be negotiating with our bondholders in China, because if we don't put a credible plan on the discussion, ultimately, we all lose."
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, partly by letting decade-old tax cuts on the country's highest earners expire at the end of the year. He would continue those Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples making above $250,000. The highest rates on top-paid Americans would rise from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent.
Boehner has offered $800 billion in new revenues to be raised by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks on upper-income people. The Republican plan would cut spending by $1.4 trillion, including by trimming annual increases in Social Security payments and raising the eligibility age for Medicare.
Hensarling and Coburn spoke on ABC's "This Week." Blackburn and Cole spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." Durbin spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
start cutting back the military in the european countries.
Â
stop being the worlds police
Â
start reimplementing the clinton tax rates.
Â
stop cow towing to party lines and business and start cow towing to actual citizens and by that I mean the majority not the weathiest one percent. Â one person should equal one vote. Â Not One million equals more power.
Â
and yes, if the gop doesn't get with a better program they will become a third party or a non party as mentioned earlier.
When did $200,000 become "ultra rich"? That would barely get you a condo in Seattle. In bigger cities, like SF, Chicago, and NY, that's solidly middle class.Â
Encouraging, at least a shred of light that the parties are at least willing to bend a little
 @Howard Beale Huh? Bending isn't even an option really. The Fiscal Cliff was a point of reference that America already went over long before now.
It's almost amusing to hear some of the phrasing these retrograde Republicans use to finesse their breaks with the Pledge...I heard one say that voting for a moderate tax increase on the rich would actually be a vote to cut taxes...since if there is no vote, taxes on everyone will go up.
I'd almost bet that these guys actually want to be politicians when they grow up...
 @OrcasThunder Republicans, Democrats and the friggin' G.O.P have already ran our economy into the ground. Politicians when they grow up? Seems like the usual crowd of self serving, arrogant and pompous oligarchy to me. Â
One thing is for sure...... The middle-class and poor will get hosed regardless of any new imposed taxes on the rich. Richie always comes out smellin' like a rose.... How does reduced hours, increased federal/ state/ local taxes and possible layoffs sound to you to compensate for increased taxes on the rich? Oh yes and rising fuel costs, food and property tax in addition.
This comment has been deleted
 @the unvarnished truth I don't think anyone will have to worry about Obamacare whatsoever....
I am an independent, but I am disgusted with Republicans who would choose to screw the low and middle classes via SS and Medicare cuts, when neither is no more of an 'entitlement' than their cushy benefits packages.
Â
So, the only thing that floats their boat is to rob the poor and middle class and only inconvenience the rich. Disgusting!!!!!!!!! SSSSOOOOOOO too bad there is no Republican representation from Washington state.
Just another day in government, It is truly sad that we the people sit and take this $#!t. Yeah we can vote, they can change their collective minds and screw us any ways. They have had years to figure this out. That's right I said years. They have more excuses then a first grader and his late home work. Money to burn keep feeding the fire. Its rather sick If any one of these guys wants more money for them selves they don't have a problem getting that. If there's a mistake on there pay check They can get that fixed. If they live on a hill and it snowed I guarantee you the roads leading from their house are getting plowed first. The bottom line is......ME,ME<ME and ME.  This whole thing reminds me of the story about the government plan in case a super storm hit the east coast. In 1974 they were supposed to come up with one , but didn't know how because there had never been one before, so they had nothing to compare it with. So they didn't do anything, look how that ended up,
what about the Berkley study that shows the top 1% (those making over $360,000) make 97% of the money earned (counting realized capital gains)while the IRS says that the top 1% only pay 40% of the Federal Income Tax collected. Accordingly this means that 99% of the people make only 3% of the income but pay 60% of the taxes. The Republicans still want the majority of the population to support the minority.
This comment has been deleted
So you have no real information since you have chosen to attack the institute the study came from and then brought up 401k's. The study takes into acount capital gains (which are not part of 401k's and are the major source of most of the top 1% income). As for 401k's, they are limited to $17,500 (or $22,500 if you are over 50). Most middle class income families would be hard pressed to come close to that and still have enough money to live comfortably on while any of the top 1% would have no problem putting in the maximum amount. By the way, what does the middle class 401k have to do with how much the top 1% make and how little taxes they pay?Â
GDP is Gross Domestic Product. It is the sum of all consumer spending, government spending, business capital spending and the net value of imports and exports. Capital Gains are not figured into it. The majority of income for the wealthiest people come from realized capital gains, which are taxed at less than half the rate of income from a job. That is why some CEO's have their saalary listed at $1.00. These same CEO's make tens or hundereds of millions of dollars in realized capital gains from stock options which are taxed at 15%, not 30% or more. My original statement mentioned income not the GDP. The closest correlation to GDP would be an individuals gross assets (house, car, savings, etc.) without calculating his debts (mortgage, credit cards, car loan, etc.).. This is right from Econ 100.
"if it meant getting a chance to overhaul costly government entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, "
It is NOT "entitlement". I paid into those programs and they are NOT a damn gift!
Why is nobody talking about ending 'aid'Â payments to countries that hate us? America gives away billions to other countries for no reason or gain other than to be nice guys.
I'm really tired of the GOP calling Medicare and Social Security "entitlements." Last time I checked my pay stub, I paid for both Medicare and Social Security. And of course, my employer matches what I pay in SS, so how does it become an entitlement?
Â
It's the same old GOP tactic:Â Screw the little guy so my rich friends don't suffer.
@factchekr I am owner of business.. you are right about company matches what employees pay in SS and Medicare but company has to add 2 more percent top of matches to pay.. thats hurt for all small businesses.... i had to give up some my income from my own company to pay for those SS and Medicare...
@factchekr They're called entitlements because individuals don't put in what they take out. What you and your employer put in is nowhere near what you will take out (assuming we will have Medicare and Social Security when we retire). The rest is paid for by other workers.
 @justeric  @factchekr "individuals don't put in what they take out." You forget one thing though; the federal government has gotten FREE use of that withdrawn money for 40 PLUS years of our employment history. Please don't go easy-sleazy liberal on this subject.
 @justeric  @factchekr The monthly amount your received is determined by the amount you contributed to the fund over the years. Since this is a large pool of contributors you have people who live a long life and will receive more than they put in. But you will also have others who died before they were able to collect much of what they paid. This is why Social Security has never missed a payment.
Funds were stolen by our greedy government and worthless Treasury Bills used as markers, The Republican corporate bosses are the ones pushing to turn it over to the private sector. There is money to be made with all those fees they will add, just like your bank charges you.Â
 @justeric  @factchekr You are full of it.
"Senate Republicans would probably agree to higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans if it meant getting a chance to overhaul costly government entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, a GOP senator predicted Sunday."
Â
Sure they would. Anything to hack away more of the social safety net and to keep from reducing the Pentagon budget. Got to keep the arms industry happy selling more weapons to blow things up.
Â
Incidentally, Social Security has added ZERO (0) to the deficit. Medicare needs to be improved for sure but this is not the way to do it. Single payer like every other developed country already has for much, much less cost is the way to do that.
Â
I can't decide if legislators are uninformed, stupid, or psychopaths. Their ideology would indicate that it's the latter.
The former two characteristics probably describe most Americans.
This is no longer a nation of "equality". We have become a nation of entitlement. Too many people believe that they are victims and that they are "owed". If we truly were a nation of "equals", we would have aflat tax and EVERYONE would pay into it.
 @scared_citizen If I have spent my entire adult life chipping into a program that was designed to be there for me in my retirement you are G.D. right I am OWED it! It is not a flipping entitlement!
@Petwlkr I agree with you on that. I dont believe SS is a "gift" and I want mine too. I am specifically speaking of things given to people who otherwise have not worked for it. You know that happens all too frequently.
@Petwlkr Both sides are just posturing right now. Its all bluster till they actually start negotiating but just so I get it stated here, I fully believe that if our nation truly believes that "all men are created equal", then all should pay an "equal percentage". If you expect the rich to carry the nation financially, you automatically should expect that they get more of a say in the nations affairs.
 @scared_citizen I don't believe I said the GOP was solely responsible for the financial mess this country was in. I did however assert that the GOP is the one currently advocating that we devastate the rest of the country for the express purpose of providing the economic elite with more as the only solution to the debt celing that they will accept.
 @scared_citizen You should've always remained an independent.... Never buying into any political ideology.... (just a thought) Glad you're seeing things differently.... :D)
@Petwlkr I have news for you. The GOP party is not the only problem we have. The Dem party is just as much to blame for our current econimic condition. I have historically been on the GOP side but I am becoming more and more disenfranchised. Since I cant be a democrat, I am becoming more and more of an independent.
 @scared_citizen I am well aware that there are those among us that game the system and ultimately take more than they give. Here's the thing though; those people exist in ALL economic brackets of our society. The GOP party seems to have adopted the attitude that when the takers are multinational corporations or well connected & filithy rich they are to be forgiven for their "entitlements" while the rest of us are to be demonized. Heck they even seem to embrace the idea that the middle class should shoulder more than their share of the burden in order to reward those at the top with even more.
 @scared_citizen  @Petwlkr You mean like the people who get $3000 tax refunds but never paid $3000 in income tax to begin with?
@Petwlkr @scared_citizen How much are you putting in and how much will you take out?
 @scared_citizen  @Darn True. We also don't know what our salary will be in the ensuing years. So my comment was in error.
@Darn it! That wont tell you. The date of entry keeps getting extended and the payout reduced. the "date of your death" would only tell you your take out IF things did not change which of course, they do and will.
@justeric I am putting in way more than I will ever get out.
 @justeric  @Petwlkr  @scared_citizen The only way to know how much you will take out is to know the date of your death.
 @justeric  @Petwlkr  @scared_citizen Well, they keep raising the retirement age, so probably not even a break-even, at this point.
I like how this guy is considered a "pragmatic deal broker."Â Instead of the standard Republican position of absolutely no skin in the game for the super-wealthy, he says, "well, OK, maybe some tiny upper bracket tax increases, in return for savagely shredding the social safety net for everybody else."
Â
No sale.
Why must the rich pay for everyone else?
Â
The rich pay more because they can afford to, it really is that simple. The United States had its greatest GDP growth when the rich were tax rates at its highest. Having a scaled tax rate system helps encourage the wealthy to reinvest in business to assist in assuring a steady growth rate. Reducing the negative impact to retain savings by the wealthy allows for them to take advantage of fiscal growth opportunities that don't directly increase the quantity of workers within the work force. Which basically means there are less new jobs created and more wealth hording by fewer individuals.
Â
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
 @K00lGuy Check this out K00IGuy.
Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDW_IO7azmE&feature=related
 @Gaikokujin  @K00lGuy Such bad audio it was unintelligible.
 @Glassman  @K00lGuy Audio is fine for me, so must be a connection issue or comp issue
 @K00lGuy What are you talking about? With all the tax breaks and entitlements they get, the rich don't even pay for themselves, let alone "everyone else."
 @Sutekh  @K00lGuy How much did you pay in tax last year?  I'm far from Rich (work 12 hours a day 6 days a week min.) but paid six figures between property, social security and federal income taxes.  The 47% don't pay for themselves and that's a fact.  The entitlement generation folks like Sutekh can suck a fat one. Â
 @CB I would love to see you convince any one of the 46 million who's incomes are below the poverty level (http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf pg. 13) that you paying your "six figures between property, social security and federal income taxes" are "far from Rich".  I'm not buying it. Â
Â
Â
 @Sutekh  @K00lGuy Utter nonsense, but of course you know that.Â
 @Sutekh  @Gaikokujin  @K00lGuy LOL who creates that job, the business owner who puts out & risks his capital or the laborer. The business owner of course.
 @Gaikokujin  @K00lGuy Are capital gains taxed at half the rate of labor, or aren't they? Is there a cap on taxable income for social security, or isn't there?
Â
I'm sorry that facts have such a liberal bias.
If GOP does not accept the tax hikes on the rich,they better take take their own HIKES !