Question for my Republican friends here

[Stevenson]

In all sincerity, I don't see how you can vote for these guys. We just had an election that turned on deficits, yet saving tax cuts for the wealthy is what they just hung their hats on, deficits be damned! Doesn't their hypocrisy or lack of foresight bother you? Letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest expire would have really help cut the deficit.

And what about their fawning all over the rich, doesn't it bother you that they seem to care little for the middle class?

I am not trying to score points or start a fight, I just really don't get it.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I favor a flat tax. Not a supporter of cascading tax system.

Also do not believe that government spending is the solution, nor is adding an additional burden on the wealthy..the ones who provide jobs that will get the country moving. This country needs economic stimulus in the way of more businesses. That's the only way the employment rate will increase. Stifling business is a sure fire way to make the poor just even more dependent on the government.

Its not about deficit reduction, its making sure the burden is spread equally for all. The wealthy (top 10%), as mentioned in another thread, pay 70% of the taxes in this country. That is a huge disparity.

 

[blazerboy30]

And I don't get how you democrats can continue coming to this board bitching about sketchy politicians yet you continually vote to give the politicians and the government more and more power.

 

[julius]

I favor a flat tax. Not a supporter of cascading tax system.

Also do not believe that government spending is the solution, nor is adding an additional burden on the wealthy..the ones who provide jobs that will get the country moving. This country needs economic stimulus in the way of more businesses. That's the only way the employment rate will increase. Stifling business is a sure fire way to make the poor just even more dependent on the government.

Its not about deficit reduction, its making sure the burden is spread equally for all. The wealthy (top 10%), as mentioned in another thread, pay 70% of the taxes in this country. That is a huge disparity.

They pay 70% not because they pay at a significantly higher rate, but because they make a significantly higher amount of money.

 

[Stevenson]

Why doesn't someone answer the question?

Of course the tax system is unfair, of course there are scummy Democrats. That's not the issue I raised. I would like to see someone actually give me an answer without ad hominem attacks or changing the subject.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

They pay 70% not because they pay at a significantly higher rate, but because they make a significantly higher amount of money.

They also pay a significantly higher rate.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

In all sincerity, I don't see how you can vote for these guys. We just had an election that turned on deficits, yet saving tax cuts for the wealthy is what they just hung their hats on, deficits be damned! Doesn't their hypocrisy or lack of foresight bother you? Letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest expire would have really help cut the deficit.

And what about their fawning all over the rich, doesn't it bother you that they seem to care little for the middle class?

I am not trying to score points or start a fight, I just really don't get it.

It's easier to blame the other side for all the problems then actually try and fix them. Neither party is serious about reducing spending.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Why doesn't someone answer the question?

Of course the tax system is unfair, of course there are scummy Democrats. That's not the issue I raised. I would like to see someone actually give me an answer without ad hominem attacks or changing the subject.

I did answer the question. I favor a flat tax, and making it more cascading is against my core beliefs. And since the wealthy are already paying the burden in this country, the point about republicans not caring for the middle class is moot.

 

[hasoos]

Well to be honest I am pretty pissed the legislation to reduce the deficit did not advance. Because the legislation as it said, would have revamped the tax system. But instead the politicians in DC on both sides decide to do the exact opposite, cut taxes for all. That is totally infuriating. In order for the deficit to be cut to a reasonable level it is going to take budget cuts across the board. Everybody built the deficit, everybody will have to sacrifice in order for it to be paid back. It will also take everybody paying their part of it. I see more of the same old bullshit from DC, Republicans and Democrats alike.

 

[julius]

They also pay a significantly higher rate.

But it's not why they make up 70% of the taxes collected.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

But it's not why they make up 70% of the taxes collected.

By that logic, if there was a flat tax, they will still pay most of the taxes collected then and there will be parity in the tax rate.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I would actually be fine if all the Bush tax cuts were expired across the board though. However, not a fan of selectively letting it expire just for the wealthy.

 

[hasoos]

This country has some of the most fucked up tax rules I have seen. We give people a tax break when having kids. But I ask you this. Who uses up more government resources? A family with kids, or a family without kids? It's pretty easy to see that a family with more people in it will use more government resources than a family without. But what do we do? We charge larger families less taxes.

I would welcome a flat tax if implemented well (in other words, good math behind it and no loopholes).

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

This country has some of the most fucked up tax rules I have seen. We give people a tax break when having kids. But I ask you this. Who uses up more government resources? A family with kids, or a family without kids? It's pretty easy to see that a family with more people in it will use more government resources than a family without. But what do we do? We charge larger families less taxes.

I would welcome a flat tax if implemented well (in other words, good math behind it and no loopholes).

I agree. Its too confusing, convoluted and too many loopholes.

Its not like the current system really works or anything.

 

[HailBlazers]

Why doesn't someone answer the question?

My answer is that the economy is tied to confidence, and that stimulating the economy is at utmost importance at the moment. Our Debt is Massive, it will take many many years to bring it down, so I think rebuilding the economy trumps tackling the deficit at the present moment.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

I just really don't get it.

Which is why each political party keeps on staying in business. Instead of just fixing the problem, all they have to do is paint the other party into some non-sensical boogeyman and they will get your vote.

Take the tax cuts for example. Maxiep has made a few nice threads on this subject debating whether the tax cuts would be beneficial or not in collecting tax revenue. Hauser's law I believe. Good stuff. But you are never going to see it on a campaign sticker.

The elections just showed that when the American public is pissed, they rearrange the deck chairs. Still the same set of deck chairs though.

 

[blazerboy30]

They pay 70% not because they pay at a significantly higher rate, but because they make a significantly higher amount of money.

Uh, ~47% of Americans don't pay Federal Income tax. I'd say a 35% Federal Income tax rate is "significantly" higher than 0%. Wow.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

In all sincerity, I don't see how you can vote for these guys. We just had an election that turned on deficits, yet saving tax cuts for the wealthy is what they just hung their hats on, deficits be damned! Doesn't their hypocrisy or lack of foresight bother you? Letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest expire would have really help cut the deficit.

And what about their fawning all over the rich, doesn't it bother you that they seem to care little for the middle class?

I am not trying to score points or start a fight, I just really don't get it.

The most important thing for this economy going forward is JOB CREATION. With higher taxes, small businesses will not be creating jobs, contrarily they will be cutting jobs.

 

[julius]

Uh, ~47% of Americans don't pay Federal Income tax. I'd say a 35% Federal Income tax rate is "significantly" higher than 0%. Wow.

Link please? I bet there are some of the wealthiest among us who pay less taxes too.

 

[mobes23]

I thought both sides missed the boat. Extending unemployment benefits will more than likely make the deficit worse. Extending tax cuts will more than likely make the deficit worse. Ugh to it all.

 

[blazerboy30]

Link please?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm

I bet there are some of the wealthiest among us who pay less taxes too.

Sure, there are some wealthy people who don't pay their taxes. But that percentage is small and it wasn't your initial premise. The point is that a "non-rich" tax cut doesn't really even make sense, considering half of the population doesn't pay federal income tax in the first place.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

In all sincerity, I don't see how you can vote for these guys. We just had an election that turned on deficits, yet saving tax cuts for the wealthy is what they just hung their hats on, deficits be damned! Doesn't their hypocrisy or lack of foresight bother you? Letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest expire would have really help cut the deficit.

And what about their fawning all over the rich, doesn't it bother you that they seem to care little for the middle class?

I am not trying to score points or start a fight, I just really don't get it.

I'm not a republican, but when taxes are lower for the "wealthy" they tend to pay more in taxes as they place more of their "wealth" into taxable arenas. As for me, I support a flat tax.

 

[Stevenson]

With higher taxes, small businesses will not be creating jobs, contrarily they will be cutting jobs.

That is just incorrect. the vast majority of small businesses do not net over $250,000. This has almost nothing to do with small business.

 

[mook]

The most important thing for this economy going forward is JOB CREATION. With higher taxes, small businesses will not be creating jobs, contrarily they will be cutting jobs.

I own a small business. I don't really see how the tax cut helps my business much.

I also think it's idiotic to say I "create" jobs. I don't. Customers create jobs. I could have access to a trillion dollars in interest free loans, I could have 100% tax-free income, and if I don't have any customers I'm not going to create any jobs.

In the end, my company hires or fires because there are consumers out there (mostly $45-$85k/year in household income) who have money to spend (or don't) on my products.

The tax rate of people making $250k/year have as much to do with my business (and I'll venture a ton of small businesses) as the price of tea in China.

I do think extending unemployment benefits helps me sell more product, though, in the near-term. But I'm kind of conflicted about that. At some point we have to stop paying people not to work.

 

[BrianFromWA]

First, deficit spending isn't the only reason I vote for something. Either is candidate intelligence, or how I've been represented, or abortion, or any other one issue.

That said, you can't tell me that someone who voted for the stimulus package and ObamaCare (and the WAY that Obama was passed) should still be in office. Maybe if someone would've run a non-incumbent Democrat there would be better results for the liberal-minded. But those who had their chance followed the President and Pelosi into things that are not only repugnant to me personally, but also damaging to the country as a whole. AFAIK Rand Paul and Dino Rossi, etc., etc. haven't done that. And if they tried to, they would be voted out the next time.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

My business is a B2B service, where most of the clients are making over 250k a year (doctors). I've noticed more doctors are paying later and later and some just kind of avoid invoices until I threaten to cut off their service. The thing is that when those individuals make less money, they likely start prioritizing bills to pay when they have less money in the bank, and it causes a cascade effect.

For many small businesses like these docs, increases in their taxes = less money that they pay not only employees, but vendors as well. Then the vendors have less money. Its all connected.

 

[blazerboy30]

I own a small business. I don't really see how the tax cut helps my business much.

I also think it's idiotic to say I "create" jobs. I don't. Customers create jobs. I could have access to a trillion dollars in interest free loans, I could have 100% tax-free income, and if I don't have any customers I'm not going to create any jobs.

In the end, my company hires or fires because there are consumers out there (mostly $45-$85k/year in household income) who have money to spend (or don't) on my products.

The tax rate of people making $250k/year have as much to do with my business (and I'll venture a ton of small businesses) as the price of tea in China.

I do think extending unemployment benefits helps me sell more product, though, in the near-term. But I'm kind of conflicted about that. At some point we have to stop paying people not to work.

This line of reasoning is like believing in a perpetual motion machine. It is like when Obama, in his campaign, claimed that "every $1 spent on childhood development results in a $10 return to the economy". Right.

The government should just print endless money and give it to those that can't create, just consume, and our economy will be amazing. I also have a perpetual motion machine I would like to sell you.

 

[Natebishop3]

Why doesn't someone answer the question?

Of course the tax system is unfair, of course there are scummy Democrats. That's not the issue I raised. I would like to see someone actually give me an answer without ad hominem attacks or changing the subject.

I imagine they vote for them for the same reason that Democrats vote for their crappy politicians..... as long as the person has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they get the vote. Isn't voting party lines wonderful?

 

[mook]

This line of reasoning is like believing in a perpetual motion machine. It is like when Obama, in his campaign, claimed that "every $1 spent on childhood development results in a $10 return to the economy". Right.

I don't know if that's what he said, but it sort of makes sense, and perhaps underestimates the impact. If by "child development" you mean "grade school," I think tax payers 35 years ago have received an excellent return on the investment they made in me to attend public education. I've generated far more wealth with the foundation created on that grade school education than the tax payers spent on me. I think that's generally (although maybe not universally) true.

The government should just print endless money and give it to those that can't create, just consume, and our economy will be amazing. I also have a perpetual motion machine I would like to sell you.

That's as silly as saying that the government should just cut taxes forever until they collect not a penny and no government services are rendered. If only we all lived in the libertarian utopia of Somalia!

 

[Ed O]

I actually chatted with a friend (who works for a progressive political organization, but is about as reasonable as anyone gets in terms of political discussion) and I answered the question the OP posted (I think). Allow me to paste:

her: I have to say that I find the Republicans refusal to pass an unemployment benefits extension by itselfunless other spending cuts are made
somewhat disingenuous
given that they're willing to pass/extend tax cuts across the board with an unemployment extension
that is going to be solely financed by adding to the debt
and creating a bigger deficit

me: well there are two factors at play, philosophically
the first is deficit reduction
the second (in no order)
is stopping the expansion of the role of the state
giving tax breaks helps people who are earning money
giving unemployment extensions helps people who are not earning money
if the state wants to help those who aren't working
then the state should tighten its belt elsewhere
so it's a zero-sum game
(I would argue this is their logic)
if the state is going to help working people/people earning money
then that's a benefit
and the state therefore can extend benefits
of course, that doesn't address the deficit issue

There's your answer.

Of course, I don't vote for the GOP. I think voting is a waste of time.

Ed O.