OnTheIssuesLogo

Paul Hodes on Tax Reform

Democrat


Fiscally irresponsible to allow tax breaks for the top 2%

Ayotte and Hodes show stark differences in their approach to taxes, business development and spending. Hodes believes the Bush tax cuts should be repealed for the wealthiest Americans, applying the influx of cash to the country's increasing deficit. " It is simply reckless. It's fiscally irresponsible to allow the tax breaks for the top 2%, where all the wealth has gone, while the middle class has been clobbered, to continue. That's $700 billion," said Hodes who argued an opposing strategy would double the deficit. "That's not fiscally conservative. That's not fiscally responsible," Hodes said.

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.

Source: Fox News coverage of 2010 N.H. Senate debate Sep 23, 2010

Irresponsible to give $700B in tax cuts to wealthiest 2%

Ayotte favors extension of all Bush tax cuts while Hodes agrees with Pres. Obama that the tax cuts should end for those making more than $200,000 a year. "It's the wrong philosophy to raise taxes during these difficult, economic times and that's what he would like to do," Ayotte said of Hodes.

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."

Source: Nashua Telegraph coverage of 2010 N.H. Senate debate Sep 23, 2010

Estate tax of 35% after first $5 million

Ayotte would keep the zero federal tax on estates that will jump back up to more than 50 percent if Congress doesn't extend that Bush tax cut.

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.

Source: Nashua Telegraph coverage of 2010 N.H. Senate debate Sep 23, 2010

Keep the estate tax; keep the dividend tax

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

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.

Source: 2004 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Nov 1, 2004

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

    Other candidates on Tax Reform: Paul Hodes on other issues:
    NH Gubernatorial:
    John Lynch
    NH Senatorial:
    Jeanne Shaheen
    Kelly Ayotte

    Retiring as of Jan. 2011:
    CT:Dodd(D)
    DE:Kaufman(D)
    FL:Martinez(R)
    FL:LeMieux(R)
    IL:Burris(D)
    IN:Bayh(D)
    KS:Brownback(R)
    KY:Bunning(R)
    MO:Bond(R)
    ND:Dorgan(D)
    NH:Gregg(R)
    OH:Voinovich(R)
    PA:Specter(R)
    UT:Bennett(R)
    WV:Goodwin(D)

    Unseated as of Jan. 2011:
    AR:Lincoln(D)
    UT:Bennett(R)
    WI:Feingold(D)


    Newly elected, Nov. 2010:
    AR:Boozman(R)
    CT:Blumenthal(D)
    CO:Bennet(D)
    DE:Coons(D)
    FL:Rubio(R)
    IL:Kirk(R)
    IN:Coats(R)
    KS:Moran(R)
    KY:Paul(R)
    MO:Blunt(R)
    ND:Hoeven(R)
    NH:Ayotte(R)
    NY2:Gillibrand(D)
    OH:Portman(R)
    PA:Toomey(R)
    UT:Lee(R)
    WI:Johnson(R)
    WV:Manchin(D)


    Re-elected, Nov. 2010:
    AK:Murkowski(I)
    AL:Shelby(R)
    AZ:McCain(R)
    CA:Boxer(D)
    GA:Isakson(R)
    HI:Inouye(D)
    IA:Grassley(R)
    ID:Crapo(R)
    LA:Vitter(R)
    MD:Mikulski(D)
    NC:Burr(R)
    NV:Reid(D)
    NY6:Schumer(D)
    OK:Coburn(R)
    OR:Wyden(D)
    SC:DeMint(R)
    SD:Thune(R)
    VT:Leahy(D)
    WA:Murray(D)
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Jobs
    Principles
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    Technology
    War/Peace
    Welfare

    Other Senators
    Senate Votes (analysis)
    Bill Sponsorships
    Affiliations
    Policy Reports
    Group Ratings





    Page last updated: Nov 27, 2010