August 25th, 2007
12:56 PM ET
7 years ago

Giuliani unveils tax policy

Giuliani talks taxes in New Hampshire Saturday

(CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani Saturday proposed a tax policy that he says would give taxpayers more control over their money.

Speaking in Manchester, New Hampshire, Giuliani vowed to make permanent President Bush's tax reductions and find ways to cut them further, eliminate marriage penalties and inheritance taxes, and provide tax incentives for people who purchase their own health insurance.

Citing his accomplishments as the mayor of New York City, Giuliani said his tax cuts in the city, although they were against conventional wisdom at the time, helped stimulate the economy, attract business and slash unemployment.

Giuliani charged that Democrats are pushing for larger government and greater control of more taxpayer money.

"I have a different theory," he said. "We have to give things back to you for the common good."

"We have to make sure none of these people are elected," said Giuliani, "because if they are, we're going to see the greatest tax increase in the history of this country."

Giuliani said those tax increases could amount to $3 trillion.

– CNN Political Desk Editor Mark Norman


Filed under: Rudy Giuliani
soundoff (60 Responses)
  1. Rick, Chicago Illinois

    Ru B, New Hampshire,

    FACT: The CEOs are hording the profits that should be going to the WORKERS who worked their azzes off to MAKE the CEO the money that he's getting. Many are getting multi-billion in compensation packages as those workers get their pensions, salary and jobs slashed.

    0-1!

    FACT: That 22 percent is doing a heck of a lot for anybody but the rich. Making the rich richer isn't stimulating EVERYBODY'S economy.

    0-2!

    "Consumer debt rises when people live beyond their means."

    Really? Care to take a guess at what the top THREE causes for personal bankruptcies are? Wait ...let guess? The poor buying Mercedes, fur coats and caviar right?

    Wrong!

    FACT: Try job loss, medical bills, and divorce.

    0-3!

    "The revenues are going to many of the earmarked projects coming out of the Dem-controlled Congress. Demand earmark reform."

    LOL! Blame the Dems again ... for what they've been doing for 7 months rather than the repuubs who've had control of congress for YEARS, CREATED the deficits and national debt we have now, and even went so far as to REMOVE pesky laws that PREVENTED them from raising that national debt? Where were you when the repubs were earmarking Republican Senator Don Young's bridge to nowhere at a cost of 200 million dollars? Nowhere as long as it was the Republicans who were doing it.

    0-4!

    "I never advocated deregulation in my post, so please re-read before you accuse."

    Your first post read as follows: "They [Dems] want to control our pocketbooks, so they don't want us to know how effective it is if we make them take their hands off." If you want the government's hands off everything, then that also means you favor deregulation. Perhaps you haven't gotten your GED yet?

    0-5!

    "People who don't work or have good spending habits or don't read the contract completely can't pay mortgages!"

    See my part on what causes personal bankruptcies. Funny how your ilk praised Bush for his contributing to record home ownership. You thought those ARMS were GREAT back then. But later when they made the housing market go belly up when they adjusted they're suddenly BAD now? Bush gladly took the kudos back then, so he can take the blame now.

    0-6!

    "Welfare for anyone is bankrupting our country. 50% of the US budget is spent in "entitlement" programs. Check out the budget."

    And how much is spent fighting and NOT winning wars for FOUR YEARS? Wars as part of a "war on terra" that he himself admitted "I don't think you can win [it]"?

    It's fighting wars without increasing taxes to pay for them that is bankrupting our country – because he'd rather borrow money from .. and thus empower .. COMMUNIST China.

    0-7!

    Paying for subsidies to energy companies who are already seeing MULTI-BILLION dollar record profits is asinine. PERIOD! Consumers paying more to make disgustingly rich companies RICHER is NEVER in the consumer's interest.

    0-8!

    "Rick, your #'s on the war are false." Right. I'll just believe whatever Dubya says – since he's been so reliable up to now right?

    0-9!

    "show me a Dem who ISN'T for Socialized, gov't-paid healthcare"

    Our health care system (in its current incarnation) doesn't work efficiently for the majority of people it's supposed to work for, which is why so many millions cant afford the coverage they need. I know, you think privatization and free market is the answer. That way we can pay 5 times as much for 1/10th the results – like we're doing now right?

    0-10!

    "the ultimate question regarding taxes is: Why should ANYONE have more right to what you earn than you??"

    If you want things fixed and paid off without increasing the national debt by borrowing (from competing world powers no less), then you PAY MORE IN TAXES. And the more you have to contribute, the more you should – since the poor obviously cant contribute money they don't have.

    My 10 year old can understand that .. can you?

    Now please think before you respond next time, and maybe I wont have to correct you as much.

    August 26, 2007 09:12 pm at 9:12 pm |
  2. xtina chicago IL

    Instead of attacking each other, why not look at how the various candidates handle taxes.

    Gov. Romney came into office with $3.2 bill. deficit, which he eliminated by increasing some state fees ( marriage license, home closing fees, fees for bringing a lawsuit, golf course fees, and the like.) He also proposed a corporate tax increase in order to lower Massachusetts' deficit . He accomplished this without raising personal income or sale taxes.

    Bill Richardson is a rare Democratic governor who advocates income tax cuts, and did so in his state from 8.2 to 4.9 percent. He opposes Pres. Bush's across the board tax cuts and only wants the middle class to have them. However, he understands fiscal conservatism and is quoted saying "Businesses move to states where taxes are falling, not rising."

    August 26, 2007 09:37 pm at 9:37 pm |
  3. The Other David - Clearwater, FL

    David Said, " you want things fixed and paid off without increasing the national debt by borrowing (from competing world powers no less), then you PAY MORE IN TAXES. And the more you have to contribute, the more you should – since the poor obviously cant contribute money they don't have.

    My 10 year old can understand that .. can you?"

    Does your 10 year old understand that if you reduce spending, you don't have to raise taxes?

    Does your 10 year old understand that ecen with the Bush tax cuts that tax revenues have increased – but that Congress keeps on increasing their spending?

    How does your 20 year old define Rich and Poor (In dollar of income)?

    PS – The Poor (Under $25,000 per year income) effectively don't pay federal income taxes courtesy of earned income credits.

    Guess that changes your score.

    August 26, 2007 09:42 pm at 9:42 pm |
  4. Steven in Charleston, SC

    Cary asks:

    "Democrats don't want the rich to get tax cuts. Isn't that punishing the rich?"

    Um, no. There is an old adage "the first million is the hardest." So, if someone has already managed to accumulate a sizeable amount of wealth, then why should we give them an extra incentive to make MORE?

    The reality is this - even before the Bush tax cuts, there were substantial breaks in the tax code designed to reward and incentivize the investor class. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will not change that, although it will bring the rate the owners of businesses pay on their profits closer to the rate their workers pay on their wages. That is not "punishing" the rich any more than it is "punishing" the poor.

    August 26, 2007 09:55 pm at 9:55 pm |
  5. Rick, Chicago Illinois

    The Other David – Clearwater, FL

    The problem is what OTHER spending is being cut and has been cut(education, Medicaid, child support enforcement, the food stamp program, Supplemental Security Income for senior citizens and the disabled, etc) while we spend millions on a poorly planned war in Iraq that we are not wining and WONT win until the Iraqis decide to pull their own weight.

    Stop the war, and less spending has to get cut in other places – especially since such a HUGE portion of spending goes to defense spending.

    Oh yeah ... and get rid of that tax cut for the rich, and you wont have to cut spending in other areas either.

    August 26, 2007 10:07 pm at 10:07 pm |
  6. David, Salinas, CA

    No one has addressed my question of why we should be financing the war on credit. Do you have any idea what we spend in this country on interest? Why is it “conservative” to borrow from the Chinese?

    August 26, 2007 10:45 pm at 10:45 pm |
  7. Edward G., Stuart, Fl.

    to RU B fr. New Hampshire- thank you for pointing out European pay high taxes and inferring that Americans should NOT go down that road.

    Someone from Denmark married into the family; well, their relatives all appear to "work for the government" . They seem complacent about their lovely vacation time, which exceeds what Americans take. They get most of their life "managed" by the government. But ya know what? They lack fire, a competitive edge, and drive for thenselves and their families' properity. It's just creepy and so socialist. I will not be voting for anything that starts sending us down that route because it's not what America's about. Socialism is for the complacent.

    August 27, 2007 08:42 am at 8:42 am |
  8. Rick, Chicago Illinois

    tina chicago IL,

    "How can anyone be against Rudy Giuliani's aim to let you keep more of the money you earn? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, when I talk to my liberal friends about this."

    Easily.

    You NEVER go to war without INCREASING taxes to cover the cost of it – unless you want to look like an idiot when you borrow BILLIONS from a (gasp)COMMUNIST, (double gasp) competing superpower and (triple gasp) increase the national debt up to your eyeballs – which we will ALL have to pay back eventually with money out of our wallets anyway.

    If you want to fight wars all over the globe, get things (infrastructure, etc) fixed HERE, and pay down are national debt, then YOU should be prepared to start paying for it. Don't just hand the bill to future generations like your kids and grandkids cuz YOU don't want to pony up.

    It's completely ignorant to make THEM pay later cuz YOU don't want to pay now!

    Yeah .. I know, blame Dems for raising taxes rather than the Republicans who created the debt that needs to be paid off by raising them.

    Looks like you're missing a couple bricks in your OWN brick wall there.

    August 27, 2007 08:57 am at 8:57 am |
  9. Lisa Cincinnati, OH

    That is my best friend's hand. Isn't it lovely and it is so exciting to see how happy Rudy is to talk to her!!!!!!!!!!!

    August 27, 2007 10:34 am at 10:34 am |
  10. Mindy Chatsworth, Ca.

    There is no need to throw around detailed numbers and statistics. It's quite simple. Huge tax cuts create huge deficits. Didn't we learn this during Reagan's presidency? There are no gimme's here. Clinton initiated a tax increase with not one Republican voting for it. Then, surprise, we had the biggest surplus when he left office. I wonder what happened to it? Oh, of course, it went to Bush's folly, otherwise known as the mess in Iraq. Also, it went to finance that gigantic tax break he gave to the wealthiest two percent of Americans.

    The Republicans and their rich supporters and huge corporations are laughing all the way to the bank. What a colossal joke on the middle class, who are getting crushed due to stagnant wages, higher cost of living, ridiculously high expenses for health insurance and college tuition, and on and on and on.

    I remember everyone ridiculing Al Gore
    when he ran for the presidency in 2000 for saying that he would put social security in a lockbox. Don't we wish that would have happened. Bush and all of his fellow criminals have taken whatever they can get their filthy hands on. They have gotten rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. I just can't believe that there are morons here who can't see what is right in front of their eyes.

    So now Giuliani is going to pick up where Bush left off. He has totally sold himself and any credibility he had, to continue the discredited policies of this rotten administration. I hope Americans wake up before it's too late. People have been calling Hillary Clinton "Bush Lite". Well, what is Giuliani except "Bush II – The Sequel. God help us all if he should manage to get elected.

    August 27, 2007 02:53 pm at 2:53 pm |
1 2 3