Poll of the Day > Who votes Republican for lower taxes?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If so, do you make more than $100k a year?

Republicans have never reduced the size of gov't lol
---

People don't vote republican for reasons, they vote republican for feelings.

RoboXgp89 posted...

Republicans have never reduced the size of gov't lol

Nah, the government didn't willingly weaken itself when its whole position depends on its strength?

BlackScythe0 posted...

People don't vote republican for reasons, they vote republican for feelings.

That applies to virtually every party ever.
---

No new taxes
Read my lips
Read my lips
Read my lips
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

No new taxes
Read my lips
Read my lips
Read my lips

He didn't lie. It was an increase of an existing tax, not a new one.

(Yes I am joking)

It's basically all about tax cuts. Which is why I was so confused that the President was going into stupid shit like walls and repealing Obamacare which appeal only to a fringe of the people who actually elected him.

Because tax breaks for the rich means more jobs. Taxing the crap out of the rich means less jobs cause the rich are just going to move to another country where they won't get taxed so much and take their businesses there.
---

GreenGoblinOck posted...

Because tax breaks for the rich means more jobs. Taxing the crap out of the rich means less jobs cause the rich are just going to move to another country where they won't get taxed so much and take their businesses there.

There's about a million costs of doing that. Honestly if anything cutting taxes only gives them the upfront money to do that already. Taxes in the 1950's were sky high and there was no outsourcing. We live in one of the lowest taxed climates in modern American history and there seems to be more outsourcing than there ever has been.

GreenGoblinOck posted...

Because tax breaks for the rich means more jobs. Taxing the crap out of the rich means less jobs cause the rich are just going to move to another country where they won't get taxed so much and take their businesses there.

Trickle down (aka, supply side) economics has been tried for decades now multiple times and it never works, because it always was an excuse to give more money to the rich disguised as a dumb argument.
Business sees labor as a cost. They will never hire more employees if they think they can keep their profits steady with what they have now (indeed, they're always looking for ways to cut down their staffing more if the impacts will be minimal). It's only when there's so much demand that the business can't keep up and is potentially losing money for it that they'll hire more people.
The more money the lower half of the populace has, the more demand there will be, because there's a lot more of them and they'll buy way more shit w/ extra cash than the rich will, who tend to hoard most of it. Because the fastest way to make money is to already have it, due to the mathematics of compounding interest and the % gains on shares in stocks.

Also, they already "move to other countries" in the only way it matters for tax purposes. It's called corporate inversion. Tons of companies do it right now, and unless we race to the bottom and remove ALL taxes on large companies (lulz, I bet some Republicans actually advocate for that!), there will always be some country w/ a lower tax rate.
At least, corporations. You were kind of mixing personal taxation w/ corporate taxation there, since it's the companies owned by the rich people that hire. But on a personal level, the rich just use banks in tax havens/shelters, which are functionally the same scheme.

wah_wah_wah posted...

GreenGoblinOck posted...

Because tax breaks for the rich means more jobs. Taxing the crap out of the rich means less jobs cause the rich are just going to move to another country where they won't get taxed so much and take their businesses there.

There's about a million costs of doing that. Honestly if anything cutting taxes only gives them the upfront money to do that already. Taxes in the 1950's were sky high and there was no outsourcing. We live in one of the lowest taxed climates in modern American history and there seems to be more outsourcing than there ever has been.

I mainly just think everyone regardless of how rich they are ought to pay their fair share of tax. About $35 to $50 dollars of my weekly paycheck goes to federal taxes. I am fine with that. People often act like nobody should pay taxes at all.
---

GreenGoblinOck posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

GreenGoblinOck posted...

Because tax breaks for the rich means more jobs. Taxing the crap out of the rich means less jobs cause the rich are just going to move to another country where they won't get taxed so much and take their businesses there.

There's about a million costs of doing that. Honestly if anything cutting taxes only gives them the upfront money to do that already. Taxes in the 1950's were sky high and there was no outsourcing. We live in one of the lowest taxed climates in modern American history and there seems to be more outsourcing than there ever has been.

I mainly just think everyone regardless of how rich they are ought to pay their fair share of tax. About $35 to $50 dollars of my weekly paycheck goes to federal taxes. I am fine with that. People often act like nobody should pay taxes at all.

The alternative would be to privatize all the services of government. It would be what we have now but with not even that small bit of public accountability voting provides. In other words, far more money for far less return.

The GOP has been full of it since Reagan! Reagan preached smaller government and less spending and then he grew the government big time while increasing spending ......... defense spending big time.

What the GOP doesn't want to spend on is things like food stamps, healthcare, infrastructure etc etc.

Most of their of their policies are steeped in racism and if you need proof, google Lee Atwater interview.

SkynyrdRocker posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

No new taxes
Read my lips
Read my lips
Read my lips

He didn't lie. It was an increase of an existing tax, not a new one.

(Yes I am joking)

Was it a foreclosure of a dream?
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

SkynyrdRocker posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

No new taxes
Read my lips
Read my lips
Read my lips

He didn't lie. It was an increase of an existing tax, not a new one.

(Yes I am joking)

Was it a foreclosure of a dream?

Those visions never seen

SkynyrdRocker posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

No new taxes
Read my lips
Read my lips
Read my lips

He didn't lie. It was an increase of an existing tax, not a new one.

(Yes I am joking)

And yet, he was the best Republican president of the past 50 years. Let that sink in...

So this is based on proposed plans and not anything actual? And at the same time completely ignores indirect costs which go up as a result of legislation, such as the ACA increasing the cost of healthcare plans?

As for Republicans vs Democrats on taxes in general, I should point out that you've never met fucking Dannel Malloy. Within his two terms, he increased the sales tax (which disproportionately hurts the poor), started charging a sales tax on clothes (which had previously been exempted, excluding luxury stuff), he retroactively taxed income at a higher rate (seriously wtf), retroactively gave bonuses to his staffers, proposed putting in toll roads (despite CT already having one of the nation's highest gas taxes), and raised income taxes year after year. Oh, and for all of this nonsense he was one of the country's top Democrats and chairs the DGA.
---