Why Dems hate tax cuts

Rocky Mountain News ^ | 5/31/03 | Mike Rosen

[Mister Baredog]

To Democrats, the income tax exists as a tool to perpetually redistribute income from people who have more to people who have less. Some call this socialism.

Others call it "vote buying" to maintain their power. IMHO that is their primary goal. They must have "victims" to make it work.

[mc5cents]

Bingo. Right on my friend.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Very good analysis.

[Mister Baredog]

In fact, there are relatively few rich people in this country. Only 2 percent of taxpayers earn more than $200,000 a year. While this group accounts for 27 percent of individual income, it already bears 46 percent of the nation's total income tax burden. How much more can you soak them?

I would be afraid of the answer to that question, they might just want ALL of it.

[Ciexyz]

That's all well and good to applaud the tax break that a family with four kids making $40,000 a year gets their taxes slashed to almost nothing. But what about me: earning slightly more than $40,000, single, and getting like $211 in a tax cut?

It seems to me that I'm paying for that family of six to have more money to go to Disneyland.

I've said this before, I can't wait to retire and start slurping at the public trough. Then everybody can start paying for me. Nuff said.

[Ciexyz]

Let me correct my previous post: a family of four, not a family with four kids. Sorry.

[Sonny M]

I think this is accurate in general, but there are exceptions. Simply put, some more moderate dems just do not believe in supply side economics. They honestly believe that to raise revenue you raise taxes, and to shrink revenue, you reduce taxes. Also, they have a obsession with the "safety net" which they want more encompassing.

Some republicans don't believe in tax cuts either, they honestly believe that they should reduce spending on the federal level, take government revenue and re-distribute it back to the local level. They want a smaller federal government too, but they do not believe in giving the money back, they believe in giving it to another level.

[arasina]

The voter base of the Democratic Party is made up largely of tax users.

That really says it for me! So true.

[wayoverontheright]

Democrats are opposed to tax cuts for the rich when the economy is booming. They're also opposed to tax cuts for the rich when the economy is sagging. They're opposed when there's a federal budget surplus and when there's a deficit. In other words, Democrats are ideologically opposed to tax cuts for the rich, period.

I think the words "for the rich" give Democrats entirely too much credit. We all know that some of the tax cuts they oppose go to people who clearly are not "rich". They would be opposed to tax cuts for ANYONE if it meant they had to downsize their federal power.

For most of them anything which would tend to cripple capitalism, as high taxes do, is what they are for. If they were really FOR the wealth of the "little people", they would fight for low taxes.

[nmh]

Less control. Less money for them to dole out as if they were Santa Claus. Plus they WANT people to be down and out. It fits into their racist, discriminating policy and allows them to play God.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

.... some more moderate dems...... believe that to raise revenue you raise taxes, and to shrink revenue, you reduce taxes. Also, they have a obsession with the "safety net" which they want more encompassing.

You may be right. The ignorance of the masses is a big problem but if Democrats cared to look just a little bit they would know that reduced taxes increases tax revenue. Everytime taxes are reduced, tax revenue increases. Not knowing that is inexcusable. As far as the "safety net" is concerned, the more tax revenue there is the easier to provide a safety net, if the pols don't throw it away on useless pork. The government should not and cannot provide a safety net without taking your money first and then giving just a little back to you.

Some republicans don't believe in tax cuts either, they honestly believe that they should reduce spending on the federal level, take government revenue and re-distribute it back to the local level.

Again, you may be right but I don't know any Republicans like that although I have heard polls cited that say that. In those cases it depends on how objectively written the questions were. The Republicans I know want both - tax cuts and reduced spending. The government does many things it has no business doing, that are counter productive, and bureaucracy is by nature wasteful.

What you may have observed, as I have, that often when the fed cuts taxes, local or state governments rush in to raise taxes to soak up the newly available money. Usually, these governments are headed by Democrats.

[Consort]

People who pay little or no taxes and are relying on the government in any way will strongly oppose tax cuts and they will vote for the party that will not cut taxes. This is a strong and growing Democrat constituancy and does not bode well for the GOP.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

exactly, it is called socialism.

[Sonny M]

The Republicans I know want both - tax cuts and reduced spending.

Thats the platform and majority, but Nixon, Ford, even Bush sr, and even Rumsfeld would be anti-tax cut guys who never accepted supply side economics, its part of the reason I get scared when I hear the term "moderate" republican.

[demkicker]

People who don't pay income taxes - about half the population - will get no income tax relief. How could they?

Your're right! The Bush administration needs to drive this point home. And it sure would be refreshing if they used the word "socialism" to underscore their point! Until this administration makes serious changes in legal AND illegal immigration, they are merely adding to the democrat voter base. That saying, "cutting your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind.

[driftless]

If liberals were honest, they'd admit that most taxes are for penalizing the rich rather than for fair taxation. If you could get them on the rack, they'd own up to their belief that no one should be rich...with a few exceptions like the limousine liberals. And of course middle-class citizens should not be given tax cuts because in the words of William Jefferson Clinton, responding to a a question from a women at a speech he gave in Buffalo shortly after the Monica affaire broke open, "we wouldn't spend it wisely". In short liberals do not trust Americans to be able to spend their own money correctly. That to me sums up the whole we-are-superior-to-you liberal attitude.

[ThinkFreedom]

Some republicans don't believe in tax cuts either, they honestly believe that they should reduce spending on the federal level, take government revenue and re-distribute it back to the local level. They want a smaller federal government too, but they do not believe in giving the money back, they believe in giving it to another level.

You forget some Repubicans who want to cut government debt, so less is spent servicing government debt in future. Again, smaller government is good here too...

[Mind-numbed Robot]

In short liberals do not trust Americans to be able to spend their own money correctly. That to me sums up the whole we-are-superior-to-you liberal attitude.

You are correct and would be even more so if you just said, "Liberals don't trust Americans.", or free, independent thinkers. Because free, independent thinkers won't do what liberals want them to, they can't be trusted.

[The_Pickle]

Rome fell when the people found that they could vote themselves "bread and circuses" this is analogous to the times we are living in presently.

The Masses have found that by voting for representatives, whose main campaign promises consist of voting to increase the size of the public trough, they can in effect vote themselves "free stuff".

The fact that they are doing so at the expense of others doesn’t bother them in the least and it is NOT because they are unaware that they are doing so, it is simply because they don’t care that they are subsisting on the sweat of others.