|
|
Paul Hodes on Tax ReformDemocrat |
Ayotte argued a repeal of the tax cuts amounts to a tax increase that would hurt the Granite State small businesses and cost $300 million. Ayotte argued it is simply the "wrong philosophy to raise taxes during difficult economic times" as she believes her opponent is trying to do."We're a small business state and these tax increases are going to hit our small business owners," said Ayotte.
Hodes said keeping tax cuts for the wealthiest would add $700 billion and nearly double the federal deficit. "It is simply reckless and fiscally irresponsible to allow the tax cuts to go on to the top 2%," he shot back.
Ayotte warned that repealing tax cuts for the wealthy would cost individuals and small-business owners in the state $300 million a year.
Hodes has proposed to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and he accused Ayotte of opposing them by signing a no-tax increase pledge from Americans for Tax Reform. "My opponent, she believes that tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas will create jobs," Hodes said.
Ayotte declared, "What I have said is no tax increases on any business."
Hodes instead wants to exempt from the tax $5 million for an individual and up to $10 million for families with a 35 percent tax applied to estate income above those caps.
A: No.
Q: Do you support eliminating taxes on dividends paid to individual investors?
A: No.
Q: Should a married couple filing jointly pay the same taxes as if they were an unmarried couple filing separately?
A: Yes.
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.