Since tax cuts increase revenue in this country and every country that has tried it.Then why would Democrats?

Question

want to raise taxes

Answer 1

If you are correct, lets get rid of all taxes!!

Answer 2

There have been an interesting diversity of opinion in the previous answers. Some basic misconceptions are prevalent. Bush's tax cuts were not targeted on the "Rich". They were an across the board reduction that lowered every tax bracket. Additionally, there were specific cuts included to help the middle class, ie the reduction of the "marriage penalty" and the suspension of the estate tax. I know lib's think that the estate tax only hits the rich but a small business owner who owns even a minimum of equipment and the building it is located in will qualify for estate taxation.

Alot of people have pointed at the average increase in household revenue as an indicator of the rich being the only real beneficiaries of the cuts. You should focus on the word average. The tax cuts did indeed benefit the wealthy who were deserving of those breaks as the top 3 % of our countries earners pay over 90 % of it's taxes. Those same wealthy people are motivated by an advantageous taxing system to invest in ventures which create higher returns (and more jobs) along with increased risk. Most of the new jobs created are entry level positions. The people already in the job market will see their salaries rise or fall based on the value they bring to their employers. The addition of tens of thousands of entry level postions on the low end of the salary curve draws down the "average" household income. The average "Joe" shouldn't worry about whether tax cuts are going to increase his bring home pay and spend more time increasing his skill at his trade.

Bush's tax cuts have created an atmosphere conducive to business expansion. The new businesses and jobs created have increased the overall amount of taxes paid into the government. If your personal situation is not to your liking, quit looking to the government to better you and try being personally responsible.

Answer 3

Tax cuts do increase revenue as long as we are to the left of *t* on the laffer curve. However, what gets lost in this debate is the effect the tax cuts have on the distribution of INCOME (not wealth, they are two different terms) within society. Revenue is up because DOLLARS, not people, have moved to the higher tax brackets, therefore offsetting the reduction in the tax rates. The right would argue that everyone is better off due to the trickle down effect. That is a false argument. If you go to the Whitehouse website, you will see that median household income increased by just 1% in 2005 after adjusting for inflation. With GDP growth in the 4% range, it doesn't take a genius to see what's happening. This means that the middle family in the nation only got a 1% raise, while the average raise in income was 4 times as much. And it also illustrates that a bunch of people took an effective pay cut after adjusting for inflation. We saw after the 1960's and 1980's tax cuts, after you get beyond the short run economy, tax cuts targeted toward the rich eventually slow the economy. This is because the consumer base gets eroded due to their declining real wages. It contributed to the recessions of the 1970's and 1980's. If you want to stimulate an economy, you need to target the cuts to the lower and middle class. This is because their MPC is alot higher than the elite. This policy worked in the 1990's, and we had the longest economic expansion in our history. And to Republican Mom, Microeconomics 101 won't tell you the impact of cuts on the economy. That would be Macroeconomics 101. Microeconomics deals with individual firms and how they respond to their own business conditions. Your argument and hars accusations carry more merit if you can distinguish these two fields of study. :) Time to crack open a book, Sweetie.

Answer 4

Democrats ignore the facts, didn't take Microeconomics 101 and think they know how to spend your money better than you do.

I find it typical for liberals on this post to again, bring the "war-mongering" policies of President Bush up to make their point on taxes. Their talking points from the DNC and Moveon.org don't include anything on the economy or tax cuts - other than "Iraq is President Bush's fault".

You want the facts on war-mongering nations... here you go... Here is a ranking of Countries by "Military Expenditures by % of GDP"
1 Eritrea 17.70
2 Jordan 11.40
3 Oman 11.40
4 Qatar 10.00
5 Saudi Arabia
6 Angola 8.80
7 Israel 7.70
8 Liberia 7.50
9 Madagascar 7.20
10 Armenia 6.50
11 Yemen 6.40
12 Macedonia 6.00
13 Syria 5.90
14 Burundi 5.60
15 Maldives 5.50
16 Turkey 5.30
17 Brunei 5.10
18 Morocco 5.00
19 Bahrain 4.90
20 Singapore 4.90
21 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.50
22 China 4.30
23 Djibouti 4.30
24 Greece 4.30
25 Kuwait 4.20
26 United States 4.06

Answer 5

Eagleflyer is neglecting that both the debt as a percentage of GDP and military spending as a percent of GDP are lower than average historically.

The Democrats principal is based on ideals. To the Democrats, it is morally wrong to be wealthy, because having wealth means somebody goes without. If you are wealthy, you have a moral obligation to give it to the less fortunate, regardless of their talents, choices and behavior.

So lowering taxes (which benefits the wealthy, since the wealthy pay more than their share of taxes) is wrong to them. It doesn't matter that it generates more money for the government, it's still morally wrong to them.

It doesn't even matter that the wealth of the poor increases when taxes are lowered. It is morally wrong to them to assist the wealthy.

It's not about being good to people, or doing what's best for the government. It's about their moral system, and doing what they believe, regardless of the side effects.

Answer 6

That is a fallacy. So I guess if rates were Zero, we'd have tons of revenue? Tax policy has some impact on revenues. It makes the most difference when you reduce taxes from the extremes. Kind of like Reagan did in the 80's. We have relatively benign tax rates in the US. Bush's tax cuts only marginally helped.

What really impacts revenues is a combination of tax policy, other economic policy (e.g. interest rates). Revenues have gone up because really low interest rates, the real-estate wealth factor and other areas. Not simply because of tax reductions.

Its a simple math equation dude-- you either cut spending, raise taxes or a little of both. We can't continue to spend our country into oblivion. Where is the fiscal responsibility of the republicans? They have controlled congress and the white house for the last 6 years and racked up the largest deficit in history (even bigger than Reagan's).

Who has said they want to raise taxes? You pukes always come out with that stuff.

Frankly, I don't want to sent ANY more of my money to DC since the retards there are not fiscally responsible. Every last one of them suck.

Answer 7

Tax cuts increase cash flow in the economy. Democrats want to raise taxes because Democrats believe in helping the poor, fixing up the environment and all that, but they believe that the government, not the individual, is responsible for that. In my research regarding the homeless, it's found that Democrats more strongly support helping the poor but donate out of thier pockets significantly less than Republicans. Instead, Democrats raise taxes and then use tax revenue to pay for social service programs. It's a delicate balance, really. Cutting taxes a lot does increase a lot of internal cash flows, which helps a weak economy get back on its feet, but huge tax cuts also take away from government funded programs. Democrats know that Americans want everything but don't want to pay for it directly. By raising taxes, the spin is "we can give you ALL free medical care" but what they mean is "we can give you all medical care as long as half your paycheck goes to taxes". It's important to realize this when you vote on tax cuts- what's more important to you, having your money in your pocket and spending it where you want it, or handing it over to the government to help cover the costs of say, medicaid for everyone. When Bush wanted to privatize social security, what he meant was "don't you want to save money yourselves and invest it where you want so you have it when you retire?". It was the first proposal in U.S. history that would give Americans more freedom to be was struck down. That's a great example of the whole increase/decrease tax thing. People traded lower taxes (soc sec tax) in order to keep a benefit, despite the fact that the benefit probably won't even reach them.

Answer 8

You are kidding right? Tax incentive programs have failed to generate additional income for the government half the time they are tried. For example, Bush cut taxes three times before the economy started improving. That is a 2 out of 3 failure rate.

More so I believe the tax cuts didn't actually do anything. The lasted tax cut was overshadowed with the government making 100,000 employees into soldiers that needed others to replace them and created a half million defense jobs all for this war.

War time always improve economies in this fashion.

Answer 9

Democrats are not against tax cuts, they are against tax cut for only 1% of the nation. Tax cuts for the working man are desired. The problem is that the present system favors the rich. Those that only earn their money through investments pay only 15% while the average Joe has to pay 30% or more. Taxing the wealthy is not unfair, they were provided the opportunity to earn great wealth by this country and should not complain about paying their fair share. Everyone complains about taxes but then they scream when their government does not provide the services they want. It is not an attempt to redistribute wealth, it is an effort to make the system equal for all. In the 1950s the top 1% paid nearly 90% in taxes and corporations paid the greatest amount of the tax burden. Now that burden is dumped on the middle class and when the rich hear them complain they cry "class warfare!" All we want is a fair distribution of that tax burden.

Answer 10

Because "increased revenue," the Dow., etc., reveal very little about the standard of living of the average working-class or middle-class American, and because tax cuts have very little effect on just how much money the average working-class or middle-class American has on hand.

Allow me to explain.

Point One: Increased Revenue does not mean bettered lives.
Rationale: Say you take two samples of 10 people. In one sample, everyone in the group makes between $30,000 and $60,000 a year. In the second sample, you have three millionaires and seven people who are making less than $20,000 per year. Group A is undoubtedly the better-off group, as nobody is starving or working three jobs, and everyone is able to save a little bit for retirement. But if you were to compare revenue, Group B would sound better.

Point Two: Tax cuts have little or no relevance to how much working-class Americans are paid.
Rationale: Imagine you are the boss of a business. Your workers work for $50,000 a year. You know that after taxes, they really only take home about $30,000. As for you, you pay yourself $75,000.
Now some tax cuts have come along, and you already know your workers are going to work for $30,000. Will you keep their pay at $50,000, if that's now lost profitability for your company?
And since profitability for your company is really profit for you, won't you keep your salary right where it is?
So your company makes more profit, you make more money (because you get a tax cut), but nothing has changed for your workers. Sounds great, doesn't it?

Until -- OUCH! -- they stop having funding -- OUCH! -- for filling those potholes in the -- OUCH! -- street.

And your house catches fire and all the available fire engines are across town because they closed the local fire station.

And you lose your most talented employee because she has to go take care of her mother, who can no longer afford the medicine she's been getting thru Medicare, and her disease has progressed to the point she needs constant care.

But hey, they're your hard-earned dollars and you don't want the government spending them!

Answer 11

the Democrats believe in raising taxes to fund the federal government because they think that the economy is a zero sum game. (that if some one makes money, some one else loses money).

So they being liberals want to make the world fair by taxing the winners (rich people) in order to give the money back to the losers (poor people). this is based on the Keynesian theory.

For your info Republicans usually subcribe to Supply side economics (Reagan, 40th president)