Are you fiscally liberal or conservative?

Question

Do you like having more taxes so it can go towards programs like public housing or welfare... or would you rather it strictly be through charity and have less taxes?

Do you agree with the saying "From each according to his ability...to each according to his need"?

Do you think having lower taxes sparks the economy, causing people to spend more money, creating more jobs, thus lowering unemployment and lower the need for welfare?

The saying "from each according to his ability...to each according to his need" means if you make say 60k/year and joe b. makes 15k/year, then you need to be taxed more so Joe B. can have a his needs met. It's a socialist saying basically.

Answer 1

I do believe we need to contribute by our ability but I do not necessarily believe this should be by money.

I am fiscally conservative. I have some liberal ideas but when it comes to money and the role of government I am conservative - libertarian.
I believe in low or no taxes and people giving to charity voluntarily, not being forced to pay for others.
I do not believe people should be penalized for doing well.
I would be in favor of a flat tax of like 10 percent so what you make would make that rate higher but each would be giving equally.
I believe it is wrong to make people pay for others, altruism does not exist, everyone gives because it makes them feel good. Being forced makes no one feel good thus it goes against human nature.
(Yes this is rather Ayn Rand like)
Taxes make people of different classes resent each other. The poor hate the rich even though the poor are not being hurt by them and they are demanding things from the rich while not contributing.

By the way, I am republican but not rich, as I am in education in a locked facility in the ghetto working with juvies. I pay almost nothing in taxes as I get it all back, but I still do not want to support welfare as it does not help people get anything in life.

Answer 2

Lowering taxes has absolutely increased the economy. It has actually increased the money collected by the feds.

According to the Constitution housing, welfare, education etc., are not a right given to congress. They are left to the states so I am against these programs as long as they are run by the feds.

I am a strict constitutionalist and believe this country should be run by it and only it.

It doesn't do any good for the states to run these "entitlements" with the feds giving them money to run them. The feds always put conditions on them for getting federal money and again that is unconstitutional.

Taxes, to be fair, need to be along the lines of a flat tax or sales tax. That way everyone pays by their ability to buy and not by their ability to earn. That is punishing workers too much.

I do not believe in taking from the rich to give to the poor, that is communism.

BTW, Bill Clinton did NOT balance the budget, the Republican House of '94 did it. Only the House can initiate a spending bill, not the senate or the president.
So how in the world could he have done anything about it. All he can do is present a budget he would like to have he can do nothing about spending but veto and he didn't do that

Answer 3

I think I read too much Ayn Rand when I was younger. I don't like the "welfare state" situation; that's half the reason the Soviet Union collapsed. (The other half was unbridled incompetence.) The Capitalist system may not be great, but it's eight times better than any other economical system.

Something about taxes/economy/creating jobs/lowering unemployment: What you describe sounds great. The problem is, there are other kinds of welfare; to my knowledge, the U.S. Defense budget is the biggest. Not only do taxes pay for all the equipment, buildings, organizations, and wages for military and civilian personnel, but it requires a justification for war, which leads to debt and, subsequently, higher taxes to pay for that debt, thus making the whole thing moot.

So, in effect, I'm an individualist with a thing about precision. Sorry.

Answer 4

Guess what I am;
Balance the budget every year. Fund SS, Medicare/caid and simple social welfare programs so they will do what they were designed to do. Set up universal healthcare thereby cutting our health care costs. Stop gyrating the tax rates each time the Cons come to power - consistency and non interference should be the method, and a stable economy is the goal.

This is real fiscal conservatism.

Answer 5

Fiscal conservative!
Taxes should not break you.
The more you make, the more you you should pay. That is the definition of 'FISCAL CONSERVATIVE'

Lower taxes do nothing for the economy. Trickle down is a farce, We should have Trickle up. The poor contribute more to consumer spending than the "investors."

Also programs like public housing or welfare.benefit the seniors among us. Do you know the % of homeless that are veterans? Or don't you support the troops?

Answer 6

Fiscally conservative.

We shouldn't have forced wealth redistribution.
I think lower taxes do help the economy, but they don't help the poorest people. Regardless, I'm not a consequentialist. I think there is right and wrong. And it's just wrong to forcibly take something from one person and give it to another.

Answer 7

Conservative.

Answer 8

I'm going to have to go with conservative, fiscally speaking. It has worked well for the economy over the past four years. I don't understand why people are trying to mess with it.

Answer 9

im fiscally conservative. Im all for people working hard to better themselves. Nothing good happens when people are given things which enable them to live without working hard. All this leads to is people being complasant and then needing to rely on others for everytying in their life. I have no problem helping people who need help, but then want to take over and try to better their life without government help. Im sick of working hard just to pay taxes for all of these programs which support low life loosers who just want to mooch off of the rest of us who work hard.

Answer 10

"Do you think having lower taxes sparks the economy"

I know that the rich take advantage of tax loopholes, tax breaks, and tax shelters which protects up to 40% of their true annual income (gross).

So no. I do not agree. Reagan and Bush manage to devalue the US dollar at an astonishing rate (true buying power). I'd rather have a strong dollar than a $100/month tax break any day.

The inflationary prices we suffer due to these deficit spending "conservatives" far outweigh any benefits received from a tax cut. I'd rather not foreclose on my property (foreclosure rates going through the roof) than have a few extra dollars to spend. Reagan caused a recession. Bush's war is the only thing that is preventing one now.

Bill Clinton accomplished what no conservative has in over 30 years, a balanced budget which led to a strong dollar and fostered new businesses.