Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Joint Taxation Committee Updates Tax Loophole Estimates. In a release last week, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), a bipartisan and bicameral congressional committee focusing on tax legislation and analysis, released an updated assessment of federal tax expenditures – or tax breaks written directly into the tax code – through FY 2018. In FY 2014 alone, tax expenditures will amount to an estimated $1.2 trillion, according to the JCT. This is compared to tax revenues of $3 trillion (and a deficit of $583 billion), according to the Office of Management and Budget's mid-session review. This estimate could change based on congressional action on the so-called "tax extenders" bill, which would temporarily extend dozens of recently-expired loopholes in the tax code, including the R&D tax credit. The issue of tax expenditures remains a subject of debate for policymakers seeking deficit reduction and alternatives to sequester-level spending.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

BruceBanner

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Maybe the IRS should look in to this instead of doing Obama's dirty work.

#1 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-08-13 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe. However these loopholes are all legal. What do you want the IRS to do about it? The power to change them rests with Congress.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-13 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe. However these loopholes are all legal. What do you want the IRS to do about it? The power to change them rests with Congress.

#2 | POSTED BY 726

It's such a shame that Obama completely disavowed Simpson-Bowles. A vast majority of the public agrees that massive simplification of the tax code is a good thing. He could have easily had a bi-partisan victory had he embraced the Simpson-Bowles tax policy recommendations.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"He could have easily had a bi-partisan victory had he embraced the Simpson-Bowles tax policy recommendations."

"In one of its few specific points, for example, Simpson-Bowles mandates a top individual tax rate of 29 percent "or less." Much like the vague Romney proposals, the Simpson-Bowles plan would make up the shortfall by eliminating tax loopholes, suggesting options such as having employees pay taxes on their health benefits. Not only is this likely to increase costs to middle-income families, it could threaten coverage altogether. The proposal for corporate tax reform would eliminate taxes on profits earned overseas, rewarding companies that move jobs offshore.

Somehow, being willing to cut "entitlement" benefits has been called a "badge of courage" for those who purport to be serious about deficit reduction– despite the fact that Social Security has not contributed one thin dime to the deficit."

blogs.reuters.com

#4 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#3 | Posted by JeffJ

Obama never had a serious chance to approve or reject Simpson-Bowles. The house through it on the trash heap before it ever got to his desk.

www.washingtontimes.com

#5 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-13 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

When I was speaking of Simpson Bowles I was speaking to the tax code portion of it. What was voted on the House was the entire proposal and it regrettably had broad bi-partisan opposition.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama never had a serious chance to approve or reject Simpson-Bowles. The house through it on the trash heap before it ever got to his desk."

Which was right where it belonged.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#5 threw (duh)

regrettably had broad bi-partisan opposition.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

Which was right where it belonged.

#7 | Posted by danni

I'm mostly with Jeff on this one. Any solution is going to require significant compromise from both sides. Simpson-Bowles was close to what should actually be achievable, given the current political climate.

#8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-13 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

The middle clas has already been given their haircut. Chair number two is for corporations and I say high and tight.

#9 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-08-13 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Any solution is going to require significant compromise from both sides.

That was not a compromise, it was a surrender.

#10 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-14 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That was not a compromise, it was a surrender.

#10 | Posted by 726

That's what many conservatives were saying about it from their perspective, as well. If neither side loved it, I'd say it was probably a compromise.

#11 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-14 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm mostly with Jeff on this one. Any solution is going to require significant compromise from both sides."

The top few percent have amassed more wealth than any such group has ever amassed in the history of the world while, at the same time, American workers have seen the buying power of their pay checks actually shrink. Thus, it is RIDICULOUS to say that those barely making ends meet should have to share the pain of tax increases so that the wealthy can pay even less tax than they do now. Any mention of SS in the entire discussion is completely bogus because SS has never added one penny to our deficits or our debt.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-14 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The real problem underlying the budget debate, the economy, the housing market, health care, etc is the fact that since the 1980's real wages for most of America, Inc. have been stagnant despite the cost of everything else rising.

It was covered over for a long time buy purchasing on credit, but that has run out.

Now the solution for the middle class is to cut what meager benefits the middle class has left.

But don't dare question how many trillions have been made shipping jobs out of this country and WalMarticizing our economy.

This problem will NEVER be addressed yet alone solved so long as we are stuck with a two party system that is on their knees in front of the CEOs in exchange for political donations.

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-14 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#12 | Posted by danni
#13 | Posted by 726

Philosophically, I don't really disagree with either of you. But if you think America is going to elect enough straight politicians, to get pragmatic solutions instead of plutocratic solutions, you're delusional.

I'll basically repeat... Simpson-Bowles was as close as we're likely to get to ANY solution, given the current political climate. And that political climate is not likely to improve within our lifetimes. Unless you're ready for a revolution, the fix is in from those who are really pulling the strings.

#14 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-14 06:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#14

I gave you a NW flag.

Spot-on.

The 2 parties are deeply divided right now. They need to figure out what they can both agree on (perhaps they could use a Ven Diagram) and focus on that. When it comes to the debt, just about anything they pass that's bi-partisan is going to be a step in the right direction.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-15 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

#15 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I like the idea of a simple Ven Diagram to move this Congress along. If they are going to act like children, we should demand that they are treated like children. But who is going to be the authoritarian making such demands?

Obama ain't gonna cut it. Maybe it's finally time for George H.W. Bush to rear his head again. Who else can bring the parties together?

#16 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-15 01:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama ain't gonna cut it. Maybe it's finally time for George H.W. Bush to rear his head again. Who else can bring the parties together?

#16 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Michelle Bachmann?

Sheila Jackson Lee?

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-15 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort