Posted on 08/30/2012 6:56:56 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Billionaire industrialist David Koch, who is helping steer millions of dollars to elect Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans, on Thursday told Politico he disagrees with the GOP’s stance on gay marriage and believes the U.S. needs to consider raising taxes to balance the budget.
Koch, who is serving as a delegate to the Republican National Convention from New York, spoke to Politico after delivering brief remarks at a reception held in his honor him by Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group he chairs and has helped fund.
The 1980 vice presidential nominee for the socially liberal—but fiscally conservative—Libertarian Party, Koch told Politico, “I believe in gay marriage”, when asked about the GOP’s stance on gay rights. … Koch said he thinks the U.S. military should withdraw from the Middle East and said the government should consider defense spending cuts, as well as possible tax increases to get its fiscal house in order—a stance anathema to many in the Republican Party. …
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Leave the rest of us alone.
As much as I might hate it, taxes probably DO need to go up....on EVERYONE. Spending will probably need to be cut by double the amount we increase taxes. The fact is we’ve already spent too much, and it has to be paid for. After the debt is paid down, taxes should be cut down to nearly nothing.
I’ll give him a libertarian stance on marriage, but raising taxes? What’s the point of all this investment in the conservative movement if raising taxes is a-ok. All these governors are here showing that they accomplished big problems and balanced budgets without new taxes. Tax reform, absolutely. Blanket tax increases...won’t solve anything.
I would accept raising taxes IF an equal amount of government spending could be cut...but we all know that wouldn’t happen.
Ken Vogel thinks he is breaking new ground?? I mentioned this on an FR thread several months ago.
The Koch brothers are libertarians who believe in gay marriage...they aren’t fully conservatives like we are here on FR.
Cut two dollars, raise taxes one dollar.
You won’t hear much out of FReepers about gay marriages performed in the wedding chapels owned by Sheldon Adelson either. His feelings on abortion wouldn’t win him any FR friends.
I am trying to help the gays by opposing gay marriage....why should those poor gays have to go through what I went through in marriage, lack of sex and the pain of divorce!
The federal government owns trillions in assets. Sell them first. Rent out DOD ~ or collect tribute ~ both traditional things to do to deal with a heavy national defense bill.
Dear Mr. Koch - “gay marriage”? Thanks for all the support - but please don’t let the door hit you on the butt on the way out.
exactly
why is it that libertarians can;t use their own platform their own cnvention, their own nomination process instead we have to put up with them coming in and then demanding we become librals except paying taxes.
A freeper once said on here, libertarians are liberals who hate paying taxes, how right that is.
The media will jump up and down about this like they did with McCain’s daughter.
They live in their la land and if it were up to them then get all the drugs you want, marry your sister of which one poster on here once said a couple of years ago and never pay a tax plus get rid of the CIA, FBI etc because if we never bother anyone they won;t bother us, [sigh]
BS. Feeding the beast ain’t the damn answer.
its no use mr. koch - the libs will never like you...
I agree with you in principle, but that was not the lesson we learned in NJ. Problem is not tax increases or tax cuts, it was spending. Raise taxes, make sure the gov follows thru with spending cuts or reduction in the rate of spending increases. In the end it took a tough Gov Christie to kick ass, but even he had a tough time to make all the necessary cuts.
Why do you think he was interviewed by O-litico? I’ll give him a pass on the fudgepacker nonsense, but the tax raise is an issue for me.
His brother controls that
You’ll always get just shy of 19% GDP in revenues, regardless of tax rate. Lower the marginal rates and grow the GDP, if you want more revenues.
Time and again, a wealthy individual says we ought to raise taxes. They might even say that spending should be cut. However, they have an understanding of economics that is only slightly more sophisticated than the typical US high school student. These people think that a combination of cutting spending and raising taxes will somehow ease the budgetary shortfalls in governments. However, the real world doesn’t work that way. First of all, taxes are inherently destructive—if you tax something, you destroy that something at least partly. If you tax earnings, you will reduce the motivation people have to contribute their labor. This is in inverse proportion to income. A dollar of earnings to someone who earns just enough to be in the top tax bracket is more valuable to that person than a dollar of earnings is to Koch or Buffett. You could tax them a bunch but not have much effect and so they perceive income and taxes much differently than people with lower earnings.
Second, if you put more money into taxes, you give money to people whose job it is to spend money. There has never been an incentive or reward for any politician who cuts spending. It does not and will not happen unless the system is changed to reward cuts, punish spending, or both. This is a fatal flaw in the approach of those who harken to John M. Keynes’ Depression-era advice. Politicians spend when times are bad and spend when times are good—they spend—that is what they get rewarded for.
Third, if you take tax money out of the US economy and send it to govt, govt must use a portion of that money to pay interest on past spending—for the interest payments that do not stay in the US, that is an instant loss of value that cannot be applied to spur economic activity more generally. A portion of that interest is paid to non-US entities essentially fueling economic competition against US companies and citizens. Higher tax rates also motivate businesses and those who pay the higher taxes to seek more favorable economic environments. Fourth, taxes sent to gov’t that do not pay for interest often fuel govt programs that are impossible to cut or reduce in size given politicians’ incentives. Once a dollar is sent to gov’t, it is often like buying a subscription. Every year, another dollar must be sent plus whatever increase that politicians deem needed to keep the ultimate recipients happy. Dollars spent by private sector organizations and individuals are often one-time “project” spending—dollars spent by gov’t are repeated “subscription” spending.
These are just some of the reasons higher taxes are a threat to the economy and will not improve govt’s economic state. I would appreciate any economist’s or other individual’s comments on my post that can improve my thinking on this issue.
The United States already collects in taxes about 19 percent of GNP. No tax system is going to increase that. The Laffer Curve demonstrates that there is a break point where tax increases result in lower tax revenues. No free country can sustain taxation above 19.5% of GNP.
The tax increases that you favor will only depress the economy and spur the further growth of the underground economy.
Agreed. The idea that MORE taxes are needed is effing insane.
This country is awash in government spending and much of it is used to attack, denigrate and undermine those of us who pay it in.
Homosexual “marriage” is not about the marriage of homosexuals, it’s about forcing homosexuality on those that want no part of it.
I am a libertarian..I don’t believe in gay marriage but I also don’t believe the federal government should have a say in marriage at all..leave it to the states. It’s not the federal governments job to legislate morality. I do think homosexuals are a**holes about this. They know that it grinds the religious people, they know there are other avenues that most people would be ok with(a plurality..except for the fundamentalists)..they press the issue to make it seem like there is hate when there is none.
That makes homosexual marriage legal in all fifty states, because parents are either married or not, it can't depend on which state they are in.
Argghhh! Why should anyone pay a dime more in taxes until the obscene levels of waste, corruption, and outright theft in government are curtailed?
Besides, raising taxes does nothing for the debt. First, the higher taxes never bring in what is “expected”, because higher taxes discourage wealth creation. Second, the jerks in Washington just keep spending. Until the size and power of the federal government is reduced, we will not be able to reduce the debt!
It wouldn’t make it legal.Current laws outside of DOMA are by state by state and is up to inter state recognition(ie one state could theoretically not recognize your marriage). We leave it up to individual states to determine who can get married based on age, relationship..whether or not you have an STD..nature of the marriage(is it sanctioned, common law, etc)..so by repealing DOMA you are simply saying that the federal government accepts a marriage as defined by that indivdual state.
Let david pay more taxes if he wishes to or he can STFU. Take his money and spend it... leave his suggestions in the septic tank.
LLS
LLS
Sounds like a winner to me! The bottom line is that our .gov needs to return to it's Constitutionally mandated role, per the design of our founders.
Mr. Koch is right about needing to raise taxes. The 47% of the people who pay no federal income tax which includes people, who get the Earned Income T Credit, need to start paying. The Earned Income Tax Credit pays people with incomes up to $49,078 a year instead of them contributing to maintaining the government. The EITC needs to be done away with.
While it is true that these are tax increases, I don’t think any libertarian (or conservative) should object.
You left out the single payer socialized school industry. Doing away with that entitlement would dwarf the savings from all the ones you listed except SS and Medicare.
We should also reduce the military budget by issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Let the private sector put up the money and make a profit from some of these conflicts.
sure the govt should raise taxes because history shows they always use the extra money to
a) reduce the deficit or
b) invest it so much more wisely than I do....
sarc
Right now all states recognize each other’s marriages, even common law, this temporary issue with homosexual marriage will be resolved in the same way, as you know.
Five or 15 years from now there will be no states that do not recognize what will become a common marriage practice between consenting adults, by that time polygamy will be legal as well, as we discard the definition of “marriage” totally, and use the word for all consenting adult relationships of that nature.
How would that work in Grenada, or Desert Storm, Or the Iraqi invasion, or Afghanistan, or in a close to war stand off with China?
Only if your marriage was recognized as such in a state that accepts common-law which is only about 8 states. So while California doesn’t have common law, it will recognize a common law marriage from Kansas. On the verse though if you lived with someone long enough to be common law in another state in California your belief that you have a common law marriage won’t be recognized in a state that does have common law marriage until you fulfill whatever laws and regulations they deem necessary to have a common law marriage.
And you really believe the gubmint would cut the spending as well as cut the taxes when the fiscal house was in order?What are you 15 years old? Unbelievable.
I know that, but all states recognize each other’s marriages, even common law marriages.
That is why I said it,
“”Right now all states recognize each other’s marriages, even common law, this temporary issue with homosexual marriage will be resolved in the same way, as you know.””
Thats the problem with losertarians sooner or later their true liberal leanings sprout like a wart for all to see.
No, of course not. lol That would require a bit of pain and sacrifice on the part of our pampered citizens and would require politicians to actually become leaders.
I know that raising taxes is bad bad bad, but the money has ALREADY BEEN SPENT! We're up to our eyeballs in debt folks. We're so far in debt, it can't be paid with current revenues. Spending MUST be materially cut, and more revenue needs to come in from somewhere to balance the budget.
If this budget debacle is ever settled, going forward, we should NEVER spend a dime more than we bring in with CURRENT tax revenue, barring a state of war/facing annihilation.
I fully expect the situation to deteriorate to where the United States will be in a Greek style crisis and the political leaders of both parties like Romney, Ryan, Clinton, Reid etc. etc. will advocate higher taxes and spending cuts at the same time.
Austerity measures for America.......
Koch = Soros
Seems to be getting this way
The show Bar Rescue, John Tapper explains “Businesses have to be profitable, profits comes from managing cost”
One cost for Business to manage would be taxes. How does anyone expect the economy to grow? Spending is the issue, higher taxes is just passing the buck.
I didn’t say ELIMINATE the military budget that way. I said reduce it.
That has nothing to do with post 35. I asked a simple question in post 35, do you have a response?
Post 35 reads:
We should also reduce the military budget by issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Let the private sector put up the money and make a profit from some of these conflicts.
How would that work in Grenada, or Desert Storm, Or the Iraqi invasion, or Afghanistan, or in a close to war stand off with China?
###
Sorry, I thought it is obvious that countries can’t invade other countries using letters of marquis. So they would have no effect on Grenada, either Iraq invasion, or Afghanistan. Therefore, we would still need a strong military and a robust military budget.
In a standoff with Red China the threat of using them to disrupting their oil imports and would be a help in keeping them in line.
China gets almost all of their oil by tanker. Private companies could capture those tankers and sell both the tankers and cargo for a nice profit. Many tanker owners would refuse to carry oil to Red China and risk losing their ships. This would slow Red China’s economy and hamper their ability to make war.
We could also threaten to use them to shut down all their seaborne trade. Private warships could devastate their economy by substantially reducing their imports and exports.
The savings would not be anywhere near the savings from cutting out things like socialized schooling or Obamacare or Bushcare. But they would be more than we’d get from eliminating things like the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and numerous other programs that should be eliminated. It would save some money and every dollar we don’t spend is a dollar we don’t have to borrow.
Who are these forces strong enough to intimidate China, which country allows such a powerful military force to live within their borders? Who pays them and supports their permanent existence, who replenishes their destroyed materials and manpower after massive battle losses, who protects their bases and their flanks, and transports them into battle?
Where do they maintain their naval bases, and air bases? Who reigns them in when they go renegade, do you remember that Mike Hoare’s personal retirement plan was to conquer Seychelles, and he was leading just a few dozen guys, you are talking about creating one of the biggest militaries on earth
I misunderstood you, we can still invade, which means we save no money because we still have to maintain the same size military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.