Why do Democrats want to raise taxes when lowering taxes has proven to give them more money to spend?

Question

When you lower taxes, the economy grows and you take in more taxes because of this growth in the economy. This has been proven time and again. So my question is if the Democrats want to grow the size of the government why have no democrats avocated tax cuts since JFK? It seems to me that they would want to lower taxes and take in more money for their social programs, but no they just want to raise taxes. Why?

Answer 1

because they are interested in the distribution of wealth - they want to design a society around what they consider "fair" - its not all about spending. if they control more of economy, they set the barrier to entry, they decide who gets what and how much.

think about the results of their equality mission - the only way they can make everybody "equal" is to make everybody equally miserable.

Answer 2

Great logic you have. Please offer up a website or something where we can research this farther. Often people say things they believe and are the only one believing it. Give us experts and what they have to say. By the way JFK was an advocate of tax cuts but he wanted spending done properly too. That is something rare today in either party.

Today it is like this:
Republicans (conservative) borrow and spend like the buy now pay later plans.
Democrats (liberal) want to tax and spend like the pay as you go plan.

Whichever you prefer doesn't really matter it has to be paid for some time by someone. Revenue to the government comes in the form of taxes and so if income tax is low you will pay some other way.

Answer 3

Cutting taxes overall and running up deficit spending for a long enough time by borrowing from the future earnings of today's children will either lead to hyperinflation, or an economic crash, like 1929. The Neo-liberals under Clinton brought about a surplus while creating a strong economy. It was necessary to do this in order to recover from the Reagan-Bush1 depression of the 80s. If we do not get a financially conservative President during the next election, America could just go under like one of those "Banana Republics" we used to hear so much about in the 90s.

Answer 4

Actually the Democrats do advocate tax cuts, they just don't give them to the top one percent of the population.
/
Our massive debt is costing us 250 billion a year in interest payments alone. Where is that money coming from?
China has been buying up our debt and now we owe them a trillion dollars. Who's going to pay that back?
Bush has taken the annual surplus payments for Social Security and dumped it into the general fund to make his budget deficit look smaller. Remember, when he didn't agree to Al Gore's promise to put SS in a lock box?
Why do you think he says SS is broke?
He broke it!
.
In effect Bush has levied a massive tax on America that won't come due until he is out of office and in his own words "thats a problem for the next president".
You and your children will pay a huge tax for the rest of your life, but Bush and his rich buddies won't even be here to laugh.
Karl Rove and his buddies keep singing the same old song about the Dems: "tax and spend",, but the Republicans are really singing "spend and screw America"
/

Answer 5

Your premise is a load of baloney that has been fed the people for years now. Lets think about it. If you reduce the total tax burden by $100,000, that decrease would have to generate an increase in income of over $300,000 just to break even at the highest tax bracket. For every dollar of taxes cut such cut would have to generate over three times the amount cut at the highest tax bracket. There is no evidence that cuts generate that amount of income and taxes.

The truth is that taxes should be set to cover whatever programs the people believe are in the interest of the nation, and worth their tax dollar.

Folks can disagree about what is in the nations interest, but don't make stuff up about how cutting taxes increases tax revenues.

Answer 6

There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well.

Answer 7

That's funny, last time I checked it was the republicans with the out of control spending that require higher taxes.

Last time a Dem was in charge we had a balanced budget with a budget surplus.

This did not clear out the debt racked up by the Regan and Bush Sr administrations. But these fiscally responsible strategies would have eventually put us back on solid financial ground if they were continued.

Answer 8

I approve of raising taxes on the upper class. That's fine with me, as those who profit the most on the system should pay for their success. Progressive tax it is called. However, tax on the middle and lower class will be bad.

Answer 9

Stop invoking JFK. His was a DEMAND side tax cut, NOT a Supply Side one.

It's pure pottery to claim that cutting taxes creates more revenues to spend. It created record deficits in the Reagan years and is making even bigger ones now.

Taxes need to be set at a level sufficient to cover how much we, collectively, have decided to spend on government. Does that make sense?

Answer 10

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to do both. Can you lower taxes and raise money for the social programs? I believe taxes are needed for the social programs and that the social programs are needed. My question to you is how to do both? I am definitely interested in that.