Perdue takes heat over tax comment

Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:12 PM
Last updated 8:03 PM
  • Follow Politics

ROSWELL, Ga. -- Republican Senate frontrunner David Perdue’s comments about boosting federal revenues drew fire Wednesday morning from Karen Handel, less than a week before the primary votes are counted.

Both Perdue and Handel have signed a pledge to never raise taxes.

Perdue, in a meeting earlier this week with the editorial board of The (Macon) Telegraph, responded to a question about improving the economy and balancing the federal budget by saying his business background leads him to consider the revenue side of the ledger as well as the expense side.

“Well here’s the reality: If you go into a business, and I keep coming back to my background, it’s how I know how to relate is to refer back to it — I was never able to turn around a company just by cutting spending,” he said. “You had to figure out a way to get revenue growing.”

Handel, during the kickoff of her statewide bus tour that began in her hometown, said the comment shows the true colors of the former Fortune 500 CEO.

“Every conservative know that ‘raising revenue’ is code for raising taxes,” she said, adding it to a list of other issues she accuses him of flip-flopping on.

“He had a chance to say he wasn’t talking about (raising taxes), and I think it’s noteworthy that he did not make a declarative statement ‘I’m not talking about raising taxes.’ ... We all understand we need to grow our economy, but that’s not the same as increasing revenue for the federal government,” she said.

Perdue’s spokesman told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that the retired businessman really was talking about energizing the overall economy which would result in greater tax collections on the expanded wage base.

Perdue himself appeared on the Herman Cain radio show with his own attempt to clarify his meaning.

“I’ve been preaching for over a year that to solve the debt crisis we have to cut federal spending, and we have to grow the economy,” he said. “The other day in the editorial-board interview, I said we need to cut taxes so we can grow revenue -- without tax increases, I might add.”

Interestingly, Democratic nominee-apparent Michelle Nunn, also advocates some corporate tax cuts, noting that the United States has the world’s highest rate.

“And it also making sure that we close the loopholes, creating a comprehensive tax reform that is fairer, simpler and incentivizes innovation,” she said, adding that infrastructure investment like improving the Savannah harbor and encouraging research and development.

Handel and Perdue are vying with five other Republicans for the chance to face Nunn and Libertarian Amanda Swafford in November’s general election.

Comments (18) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Dixieman
14948
Points
Dixieman 05/14/14 - 01:35 pm
9
0
I still like him

You can increase Federal revenue by letting the private sector grow and keeping tax rates the same (or lowering them by less than the growth). I accept his explanation.

edcushman
7930
Points
edcushman 05/14/14 - 02:14 pm
9
3
' You can increase Federal
Unpublished

' You can increase Federal revenue by letting the private sector grow and keeping tax rates the same (or lowering them by less than the growth).'
Dixeman, just as JFK, Reagan and Bush 2 did. They cut taxes and tax revenue increased but liberals still don't understand.

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 05/14/14 - 02:25 pm
9
1
edcushman

That's because liberal's only want to grow government CONTROL, not just revenue!! They don't like the private sector and never will. It isn't just about creating more revenue for the government, it's about growing DEPENDENCE upon government.

They actually DO get what JFK, Reagan and Bush did; they just don't LIKE it!! They know using their example DOES grow revenue, the facts speak for themselves. But what it doesn't do is grow government dependency; so you'll never get them to admit such or accept it.

edcushman
7930
Points
edcushman 05/14/14 - 02:46 pm
6
2
myfather, I have to agree
Unpublished

myfather, I have to agree

edcushman
7930
Points
edcushman 05/14/14 - 03:48 pm
8
1
burn, yeah you have a bunch
Unpublished

burn, yeah you have a bunch liberals that will argue with facts. Tax revenue went up every year after the Bush's tax breaks until the housing balloon burst.

The Mick
827
Points
The Mick 05/14/14 - 04:00 pm
7
1
Heck yeah Burninater I agree

Heck yeah Burninater I agree lets raise taxes!!!!!!! STARTING WITH YOURS

The Mick
827
Points
The Mick 05/14/14 - 04:02 pm
0
0
You are right Burninater!

You are right Burninater! Let's raise taxes! STARTING WITH YOURS!!!!!

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 05/14/14 - 04:04 pm
2
7
Ed, that's simply

Ed, that's simply false.

Total revenues dropped in the year of, and for the two years following, the Bush tax cuts. Revenues didn't reach pre-cut levels until 2005.

Here are the actual -- not liberally- or conservatively-spun -- data.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/historicaltables[1].pdf

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 05/14/14 - 04:23 pm
2
10
Sure Mick, start with

Sure Mick, start with mine.

But a tax revenue system that tries to remain blind to the fact that as of 2010, 42.1% of the country's financial wealth was held by 1% of the population, is willfully stupid policy.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Little Lamb
46022
Points
Little Lamb 05/14/14 - 04:23 pm
8
0
Economists

Burninater posted:

The problem with the assertion that tax cuts increase revenue is that economists don't agree it is established fact.

Yes, but then, economists do not agree on anything! Here is a famous joke:

If you stacked 10,000 economists on top of each other, they still would not reach a conclusion.

KSL
129739
Points
KSL 05/14/14 - 04:31 pm
7
1
I think Handel's remarks

I think Handel's remarks were ingenuous. . If she didn't know he has been talking tax cuts, she is not fit to serve. If she did know, she tried to mislead voters.

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 05/14/14 - 04:29 pm
2
9
Yes LL -- economics is a

Yes LL -- economics is a notoriously tricky "science".

Ongoing disagreements between economists mean that a claim of established fact that "tax cuts = revenue increase" is inherently bogus.

In fact, there is direct evidence from decreased revenue following the Bush tax cuts that at least in some cases, the claim is demonstrably false.

The Mick
827
Points
The Mick 05/14/14 - 04:34 pm
9
2
Burn, and what percent of the

Burn, and what percent of the total tax revenue collected does that evil 1% pay?

KSL
129739
Points
KSL 05/15/14 - 08:14 am
7
1
On rare occasions Dems have

On rare occasions Dems have cut taxes, which increased revenues. Rare, because they are more interested in buying votes.

KSL
129739
Points
KSL 05/14/14 - 05:03 pm
5
2
As far as raising taxes goes,

As far as raising taxes goes, its the worker earners that are targeted. If the huge wealth holders who get their income from dividends like Soros and Buffet, et al, oh and many Dems in Congress would just volunteer to pay ahead of their proposed increases, you guys would have a little more credibility.

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 05/14/14 - 05:08 pm
2
8
"Burn, and what percent of

"Burn, and what percent of the total tax revenue collected does that evil 1% pay?"
------
Who said they were evil?

In 2010, the 42.1% fiscal wealth held by 1% of Americans was responsible for 22.7% of the tax revenues.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2435&DocTyp...

We currently have, contrary to the spin, an effectively REGRESSIVE federal tax system.

The Mick
827
Points
The Mick 05/14/14 - 08:56 pm
0
0
Burn maybe we can agree that

Burn maybe we can agree that tax reform is in order? Fair tax/ Flat tax I don't care. Anything is better than what we have now.

ruleoflaw
209
Points
ruleoflaw 05/15/14 - 06:18 am
0
0
Burn, we tax income...

It is you who are spinning. The 42.1% wealth held by the 1% is not taxable under our tax code, only the earnings from income and interest.
In the link you provided, every taxable bracket contributed a higher % of tax revenue than the % total income...except the bottom 2 quintiles. That would be a progressive tax, which is what we have.
I assume from your comments that you would like to tax wealth? please clarify so we can see what your goal truly is.....

deestafford
27674
Points
deestafford 05/15/14 - 07:00 am
5
0
Two points and I maybe late to the party on this as...

Two points and I maybe late to the party on this as I'm out of town for a couple of days.

I don't like it when a politician or anyone says, "such and such is code for...". Those who do that are always looking for a boogeyman to trot out where there is none.

Burn, if I were at home where I have data for years on revenue for before and after Bush's tax cut I could dispute both your assertion on that and also what you say about the percentages of income taxes paid by the top one percent as well as all the other groups. Off the top of my head if I remember correctly, the top 1% of income EARNERS ( not wealth--there is a difference) pay 39% of the income taxes while earning 19% of the income. I think the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes while the bottom 47% pay 0%.

Junior Dawg
309
Points
Junior Dawg 05/15/14 - 07:20 am
0
0
Burn is wrong

How can you call the tax code regressive when the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 0% of our federal tax burden? And that same 50% is also receiving means-tested entitlements....

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs