Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Phil Hare on Tax Reform

Democrat


Eliminate Bush tax cuts for earners over $200,000

Q: Do you support the permanent repeal of the federal estate tax?

A: No.

Q: Do you support making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent?

A: No. I want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for people making $200,000 per year or more. I want to reduce the taxes on lower and middle income families. I want a budget that eliminates needless items but takes care of our veterans, our children and our seniors.

Source: 2006 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Nov 7, 2006

Voted YES on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
  1. increase and extend through 2008 the alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amounts;
  2. extend through 2008 the offset of personal tax credits against AMT tax liabilities; Reference: Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act; Bill H.R.6275 ; vote number 2008-455 on Jun 25, 2008

    Voted YES on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes.

    H.R.4351: To provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), via an offset of nonrefundable personal tax credits. [The AMT was originally intended to apply only to people with very high incomes, to ensure that they paid a fair amount of income tax. As inflation occurred, more people became subject to the AMT, and now it applies to people at upper-middle-class income levels as well. Both sides agree that the AMT should be changed to apply only to the wealthy; at issue in this bill is whether the cost of that change should be offset with a tax increase elsewhere or with no offset at all. -- ed.]

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Rep. RANGEL: We have the opportunity to provide relief to upward of some 25 million people from being hit by a $50 billion tax increase, which it was never thought could happen to these people. Almost apart from this, we have an opportunity to close a very unfair tax provision, that certainly no one has come to me to defend, which prevents a handful of people from having unlimited funds being shipped overseas under deferred compensation and escaping liability. Nobody, liberal or conservative, believes that these AMT taxpayers should be hit by a tax that we didn't intend. But also, no one has the guts to defend the offshore deferred compensation. So what is the problem?

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    Rep. McCRERY: This is a bill that would patch the AMT, and then increase other taxes for the patch costs. Republicans are for patching the AMT. Where we differ is over the question of whether we need to pay for the patch by raising other taxes. The President's budget includes a 1-year patch on the AMT without a pay-for. That is what the Senate passed by a rather large vote very recently, 88-5. The President has said he won't sign the bill that is before us today. Republicans have argued against applying PAYGO to the AMT patch. In many ways PAYGO has shown itself to be a farce.

    Reference: AMT Relief Act; Bill HR4351 ; vote number 2007-1153 on Dec 12, 2007

    American People's Dividend: Give $300 to every person.

    Hare adopted the Progressive Caucus Position Paper:

    The Problem

    President Bush argues that upper income people pay a larger share of the taxes, therefore they should get a larger tax cut. We disagree. These people have significantly benefited from the economic boom of the 1990s, while those in the bottom range of incomes have received little benefit. It’s these folks that we must help. President Bush’s plan is “Reaganomics” revisited and it’s fiscally irresponsible. Despite spending $1.6 trillion or more, the President’s tax plan gives little to nothing for those with little income. In fact, anyone below 140% of the poverty line, will get a zero tax cut.

    The Solution

    The Progressive Caucus believes that tax relief must flow to those who need it the most, the working class and people with limited incomes. We have endorsed an idea called the American People’s Dividend. We’ll give a dividend to every American, because every American is an equal shareholder in America. We estimate the total cost to be about $900 billion over 10 years. The plan will give to every person about a $300 refundable tax credit. A married couple with 3 children will receive $1500, $300 for each member of the family. This plan is simple, easy to administer, and progressive. The plan could provide an economic stimulus since it would put money in people’s pockets immediately. Unlike the Bush proposal, which reserves 40% of the tax benefits for the wealthiest 1% of the population, our proposal gives the wealthiest 1% exactly 1% of the tax relief. This makes the bulk of tax relief available for the bulk of the population. The American People’s Dividend is payable every year the federal budget is in surplus.
    Comparison of Progressive Tax Plan & Bush’s Plan
    The WealthyThe Low Income
    Progressive Caucus American Peoples Dividend$300$300
    President Bush’s Tax Cuts$$46,000$0
    Source: Progressive Caucus Press Release, "Tax Relief" 01-CPC2 on Feb 8, 2001

    2010 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Tax Reform: Phil Hare on other issues:
    IL Gubernatorial:
    Pat Quinn
    IL Senatorial:
    Alexi Giannoulias
    Andy Martin
    Mark Kirk
    Richard Durbin
    Roland Burris

    Special elections
    in 111th Congress:


    GA-9:Deal(R)
    Jun.2010:Graves(R)

    PA-12:Murtha(D)
    May 2010:Critz(D)

    HI-1:Abercrombie(D)
    May 2010:Djou(R)

    FL-19:Wexler(D)
    Apr.2010:Deutch(D)

    CA-10:Tauscher(D)
    Nov.2009:Garamendi(D)

    NY-20:McHugh(R)
    Nov.2009:Owens(D)

    CA-32:Solis(D)
    Jul.2009:Chu(D)

    IL-5:Emanuel(D)
    Apr.2009:Quigley(D)

    NY-20:Gillibrand(D)
    Mar.2009:Murphy(D)


    Senate races in 2010:
    AK:Miller(R) vs.McAdams(D)
    AL:Shelby(R) vs.Barnes(D)
    AR:Lincoln(D) vs.Boozman(R)
    AZ:McCain(R) vs.Glassman(D)
    CA:Boxer(D) vs.Fiorina(R) vs.Lightfoot(L)
    CO:Bennet(D) vs.Buck(R)
    CT:Blumenthal(D) vs.McMahon(R)
    DE:Coons(D) vs.Castle(R) vs.O`Donnell(R)
    FL:Rubio(R) vs.Crist(I) vs.Meek(D) vs.DeCastro(C) vs.Snitker(L) vs.Bradley(V)
    GA:Isakson(R) vs.Thurmond(D)
    HI:Inouye(D) vs.Cavasso(R)
    IA:Grassley(R) vs.Conlin(D)
    ID:Crapo(R) vs.Sullivan(D)
    IL:Giannoulias(D) vs.Kirk(R)
    IN:Ellsworth(D) vs.Coats(R)
    KS:Johnston(D) vs.Moran(R)
    KY:Conway(D) vs.Paul(R)
    LA:Vitter(R) vs.Melancon(D)
    MO:Carnahan(R) vs.Blunt(D)
    MD:Mikulski(D) vs.Wargotz(R)
    NC:Burr(R) vs.Marshall(D)
    ND:Potter(D) vs.Hoeven(R)
    NH:Alciere(R) vs.Ayotte(R) vs.Hodes(D)
    NV:Reid(D) vs.Angle(R)
    NY6:Schumer(D) vs.Townsend(R)
    NY2:Gillibrand(D) vs.DioGuardi(R)
    OH:Fisher(R) vs.Portman(D) vs.Deaton(C)
    OK:Coburn(R) vs.Myles(D)
    OR:Wyden(D) vs.Huffman(R)
    PA:Toomey(R) vs.Sestak(D)
    SC:DeMint(R) vs.Greene(D)
    SD:Thune(R) vs.Berry(D)
    UT:Lee(R) vs.Granato(D)
    VT:Leahy(D) vs.Freilich(D)
    WA:Murray(D) vs.Rossi(R)
    WI:Feingold(D) vs.Johnson(D)
    WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R)
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families/Children
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Infrastructure/Technology
    Jobs
    Principles/Values
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    War/Iraq/Mideast
    Welfare/Poverty

    Main Page
    Profile
    IL politicians

    Page last updated: Sep 16, 2010