I'm on board with compromise...
-revenue increase thru closing loopholes, deductions and subsidies, not tax rate increases
- but as many have pointed out, the cuts need to be instituted FIRST, not just in writing but in practice. Make the revenue increases contingent on the actual spending decreases.
tier the revenue increases by phasing out those loopholes, deductions and subsidies (business and people need some time to adjust to changes). make them incremental in nature, ie 10% adjustment in the first year, 30% in the second, and so forth...
BUT, year two and subsequent loophole/decuct/subsid adjustments only trigger if country meets its target of reducing expenditures in the previous year.
Although I'm very down on the GOP for their obstructionist behavior for the last four years, I believe that they should hold firm to the requirement to reduce spending first before revenue adjustments happen.
-revenue increase thru closing loopholes, deductions and subsidies, not tax rate increases
- but as many have pointed out, the cuts need to be instituted FIRST, not just in writing but in practice. Make the revenue increases contingent on the actual spending decreases.
tier the revenue increases by phasing out those loopholes, deductions and subsidies (business and people need some time to adjust to changes). make them incremental in nature, ie 10% adjustment in the first year, 30% in the second, and so forth...
BUT, year two and subsequent loophole/decuct/subsid adjustments only trigger if country meets its target of reducing expenditures in the previous year.
Although I'm very down on the GOP for their obstructionist behavior for the last four years, I believe that they should hold firm to the requirement to reduce spending first before revenue adjustments happen.
