Why do Republicans never offer alternatives to taxing the rich?

I think it is more a matter of stopping further invasion and stopping benefits to the already invaded.

 

What is needed is leadership and at this time 'leadership' is saying 'no', not pandering to interest groups.

Governance is setting priorities and that is where politicians of both parties fail.

 

The rich do not need it, they earn it. Government, on the other hand, IS about ever increasing revenues as it is also about vote buying.

 

We havn't done nearly enuf, and until the last con is gone we will not rest nor be satisfied.

 

Let's cut the deficit to zero tonight. That way we can have all weekend to prepare for an economic crash that will make 2008 look like a bad hair day.

 

Because this isn't the 18th Century. We all understand that international free trade is a good thing and benefits both parties. This has been well established in economic literature for some time now.

- - - Updated - - -

Well yes, define economic health as government spending, consumption, and investment-- lower government spending and lo and behold, GDP will go down.

There would be a period of recession that's for sure. But recessions occur for a reason, it indicates resources have not been allocated correctly and a recession is the time period for them to be properly reallocated. The government hasn't allowed that to happen since the dot-com bubble in 2000 so now we just keep going from bubble to bubble.

 

They already did and it reduced the deficit, it was called the sequester.

 

The simple fact is you dont have to tax anyone any more. Cut the cost of government by reducing the number of fed employees, and abolish departments that are not needed. Abolish the dept of education, and the dept of energy for starters. They are not needed or are a total failure.

 

Unfortunately, that will never happen, so you'll need to come up with a plan B

 

I think it's because the GOP (top tier elites within that party)... don't care about any but the few who fuel their agendas financially.

If you don't have money... they aren't 'hearing' you or 'caring' about you. (That problem is on the Left also, but clearly not to the same degree.)

Republicans seem to care about 'votes', but generally not the people who cast them.

 

Totally agree, I have been frustrated about this for a while now too.

I do think that Republicans should share more of the blame on this issue, but can you show me where Democrats have tried to close tax loop holes?

Personally I think its both parties that suck on this issue. For Pete's sake, both always talk about how easy it should be to close them and that they need to be closed.

So someone close them!

 

O

Ironically, the "marginal rate, " like the suggested retail label on products is what Republicans claim S the "highest tax rate in the world, " but, as you so well point out, after 73,000 pages of tax code with deductions and loopholes favoring the richest and which only the richest can take advantage of, the actual taxes American corporations pay relative to corporations in other countries of the world is far from the highest.

Republicans should be, but aren't, ashamed of the deliberate falsehood that America's marginal tax rate is highest in the world and that means America has the highest net corporation taxes paid repeated endlessly on right wing radio and television right wing outlets without disclaimers or any inclination to give an accurate picture.

Republicans give lip service to simplifying the 73,000 tax code but what all republican candidates argue for is less taxes for corporations no matter how it is done.

Your blaming democrats for not attempting to address the 73,000 page tax code is not accurate ( listen to Bernie Sanders now and look back at all the democratic attempts before) but it is convenient, if not conscionable.

Wealth redistribution is happening now and the wealth is flowing ever more and more toward the very richest in America while the poor get relatively poorer and poorer and more and more children in America go to bed hungry.

But the poor don't complain - they endure.

The middle class diminished in both income and numbers by outsourcing and the demise of unions and union wages along with the unions are the ones who complain.

The middle class have a right to complain because middle class people are the ones who most often start small businesses which generate the most new jobs IN AMERICA.

Giant corporations like G.E. Many years pay zero in taxes using exceptions to that same marginal tax rate you refer to - a marginal tax rate that the middle class doesn't have enough loopholes to escape altogether as do the largest corporations.

The question is entirely appropriate and no amount of deflection will make it less valid. Ironically, non - partisan economists looking a Trump's tax cuts heavily favoring the richest Americans see no way it can pay for itself and warn how much it will drive up the deficit.

Continuing to give untargeted money year after year to the wealthiest in the form of generous tax cuts and expecting it to "trickle down" when that has not happened before is foolhardy.

Republicans have blocked just about every democratic bill targeting aid to small businesses hire employees who raise children with their wages who in favor of untargeted tax cuts to the wealthiest who need it the least and too often use that money to simply work for them raising more money for themselves.

The result of republicans, not just democrats as you allege, refusing to 73,000 tax code to make it work so that one in seven children in America doesn't have to go to bed hungry tonight is a national disgrace.

The fact is wealth distribution via business practices, economic policy, wage structures, and what amounts to a tax code that is virtual welfare for the very richest is happening.

If those getting richer and richer are paying, via republican tax plans, less and less in taxes from rates that are already at historic lows and outsourcing more and more jobs the result is the middle class who bear the largest proportionate tax burden are stressed more and more.

America is at a crossroads. At a time of record corporate tax rates, record cash on hand for the very wealthiest, historically lowest corporate tax rates inn history, we need to decide between raising children or raising profits. The present tax structure does not allow for both healthy children and healthy profits.

Maybe corporations don't care about a crumbling infrastructure their lowered tax rates will no longer support - even if they use that infrastructure to move factories lock stock and barrel to where they can pay workers with even hungrier children even lower wages.

But law makers need to care and ask themselves, " Should our tax code's focus be on raising, maintaining, and protecting profit for just a few Americans or on raising, maintaining, and protecting the children of all Americans?"

 

killing hundreds of thousands of Gov jobs that can't be outsourced overseas... is that good for the economy?

 

I can't answer for conservatives, but as a free marketeer I don't want more revenues to go to the government. The less revenue, the better.

Under a free market system, in order to remain a provider of goods and services, you must earn a profit. That means that you have taken inputs that are less valued by society as a whole, transformed them, and created something that society values more. In other words, in order to earn a profit on the free market, you have to create wealth. You have to entice the rest of us to take our hard-earned dollar bills out of our pockets and hand them to you. Exchanges are mutually beneficial, and that goes for the consumer as well as the entrepreneur.

Conversely, the government sets the tax rates and we must pay the taxes whether we feel we are better off with their services or not. The government doesn't have to show a profit at the end of the day-- it doesn't have to entice us to take our money out of our pockets. We will be taxed whether the government does a good job or a bad job with the revenues it receives.

So that's why conservatives don't suggest new ways of increasing government revenue. Every dollar the government gets is a dollar that is shifted from the wealth-creating, voluntary private sector to the wealth-destroying, coercive government sector.

 

Same. I'm fairly far right leaning, and I smoke daily.

But because people like me break the narrative, people pretend we don't exist.

 

Cut the spending and go to a consumption tax.

Get rid of every page in the tax code but one to explain what a consumption tax is. Get rid of the IRS, they won't be needed anymore.

Simple. Sweet. Stop (*)(*)(*)(*)ing spending money, and everyone pays taxes on the things they consume. Your spending habits = your tax rate.

Poor people can keep not paying (*)(*)(*)(*), and the rich can be happy knowing what their taxes will be.

Problem solved.

 

Complete nonsense. Firstly, it is not the federal governments job to do. Secondly, states, charities, churches, friends and family will take care of the "truly" needy. All the fed is doing is promoting gang violence and dependency of the able bodied.

 

They don't really and truly have Faith in Capitalism, and may prefer socialism that is more nationalized than necessary and proper, allegedly, in the name of Patriotism?

How can the Right not have absolute Faith in Capitalism, with our federal Congress having an official Mint at their disposal.

I believe investments in the general welfare should require a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

 

Much of what the government spends does have a multiplier effect that, over time, brings huge benefits to the economy. It has been roughly estimated that the money spent to build the interstate highway system over its first 60 years has returned well over $1,000 in Federal tax revenues for every $1 spent. For the government highway infrastructure has been by far its best investment. Which leads me to wonder why so many would rather let the entire road system crumble into dust than raise taxes to pay for it.

Defence spending is certain areas has had even greater returns. Darpa funded initiatives have created from scratch almost all of the technological advances over the last 50 years, providing the sparks that have generated the technological advances that have fuelled our modern economy. NIH has funded almost all of the basic research that has lead to generations of the blockbuster drugs that drug manufacturers have reaped $Trillions from.

Drug companies do not fund basic research, tech companies do not fund basic research, only governments do that. The idea that drug and tech companies owe nothing to the government is absurd. The government funded the research that is the foundation that their businesses stand on. If anything they owe more to the government, and to the people whose taxes paid for the research they are so dependent on, than any other business sectors.

From a purely capitalist perspective there is no reason why the government should not have a stake in these businesses or tax them in order to gain some returns from its basic research investments. From a socialist perspective there is every reason for the government to tax them on order to reap some benefit for the people from its basic research investments.

The only side that would not agree that these firms should not pay something back somehow for their use of government funded research are the crony capitalists, who would argue that they got it for free so why should they have to pay taxes on the profits they make from it.

 

Why not simplify Government to lower our Tax burden?

 

Cut government spending. Then you dont have to raise revenues.

 

Corporations dont pay taxes - they only collect them.

 

Capital gains taxes should be eliminated - you've already been taxed on the income you used to purchase the asset subject to gains. Same with dividends.

 

65, 000 pages of tax laws. There's your answer. Everey special interest got thier taste.

 

Absolutely! The less Government workers the better. Let them fight with the illegals for fast food jobs.