6 ms·

> but the most extreme anti-government/anti-tax ideologies. It's the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. That sadly isn't an extreme i

> but the most extreme anti-government/anti-tax ideologies. It's the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. That sadly isn't an extreme ideologies. Every wonder why Republicans are all for tax cuts? Its the simple idea that if the Government has less money it must be smaller. So lower the taxes of the rich and corporations = smaller government. This is why we have problems all the time with tax talks. Both sides talk with different worldviews. You might say "Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work," they simply don't care, "There is nothing that Government does well." "Government is the problem" - Ronald Reagan 1981 Inauguration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1sGN6J9Tgs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1sGN6J9Tgs Though I love throwing Reagan into the face of today's "Conservatives" they really would HATE Reagan today and his liberal ways.

pc86 9y ago
I am generally in favor of a smaller national government and my default position on a tax cut is positive until proven otherwise, yet I still understand how progressive tax structures work. I have many friends and associates who would be considered conservative even among other Republicans, and probably have inconceivably conservative viewpoints by most of HN's standards. And I don't think any of them would spend $150k just to keep $30k out of the government's hands. So yes I think if you're going to hurt yourself financially to make some token gesture toward the government that won't even show up on a budget spreadsheet because it's so small, that's either an extreme ideological viewpoint or you don't know how taxes work. "Never ascribe to malice" and all that. And individual taxes aside, corporate taxes should absolutely be lower, they're among the highest in the world.
- baldfat 9y ago
  > corporate taxes should absolutely be lower, they're among the highest in the world. Effective Rate So lets say Corporate Tax is a 20% flat tax from 35% the taxes would actually increase. Because they are actually paid at around 15% and no where close to highest in the world. We are actually on par or bellow the average tax rate across the world. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/04/24/trumps-corporate-tax-slash-ignores-how-litte-companies-already-pay/#239c8ff758aa https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/04/24/trumps-c... Personally I would love to see a drop of corporate federal taxes and place them more on the individuals. Tax the shareholder and those that profit from the corporations. The truth is this isn't happening and why we see the money continually going to the top and not filtering down. Corporations are incentivized to lower wages and benefits to extract more profit. As the economic disparity continues to climb and the burden is placed on the middle and lower class to support profit growth. Looking at taxes for the national safety net for the working poor, higher utilities bills, and higher medical expenses and insurance cost. None of these are of concern for the wealthy. We can't even have a conversation on what is fair for the working poor and instead we disincentive work in America. The "conservatives" today are just totally Libertarians who could careless if work is incentivized.
EdSharkey 9y ago
I've always thought of "trickle down economics" as an overly-rosy way of saying that we'll "grow our way out of the hole". Nevermind the 'conservatives' will never stop digging, will never cut spending, even occasionally spinning up another entitlement of their own, and only occasionally toss their people a bone by slowing existing programs' growth rate. I don't think Reagan thought of government size as being a problem since he grew it massively. I think he did rebel against bureaucracies and waste/fraud/abuse, at least rhetorically. Ultimately, the guy was a deal-maker, and he'd happily grow the government (with military at the forefront) if he could get his stimulative tax cuts. > Though I love throwing Reagan into the face of today's "Conservatives" they really would HATE Reagan today and his liberal ways. He was as liberal as JFK was, which is to say Reagan was your classic "govt can do some good here"-liberal. Today's true "liberals" are cultural marxists, which ultimately makes them toxic, hence their precipitous decline recently. If the libs could drop the culture war stuff and focus on labor issues and positive right-sized governing, they'd shoot back to popularity. Nothing will improve while power comes chiefly from dividing people and the hatred continues to flow. Reagan was a moral man and he was a good orator, making him a fine spokesman for America and raising our stock worldwide. That he could reassure and comfort people was the best part about him; the rest of Reagan was muddled goods and bads.
- baldfat 9y ago
  But Hillary wasn't a liberal. Liberals actually hated her. We are now in the world perception of Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative and its just wrong. I grew up being a Republican and I don't think I have changed much in my political stances but everyone else has moved far to the Libertarian doctrine. Case in point: Increase the wages and benefits = less government funding. Never going to get backing from Republican Party in its present form. So instead we have this Corporation Welfare system where tax dollars for Walmart's benefits.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Actually both Hillary and Obama are one nation Tories ie centre right only Bernie might be considered left wing but would be considered a Blarite by hard line leftists.
dang 9y ago
This triggered the sort of low-rent political thread we don't want here. Please don't do that. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15862439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15862439 and marked it well off-topic.
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  I thought everyone was very respectful.
  - dang 9y ago
    It's way off topic.
    - EdSharkey 9y ago
      Yes, it is. Thanks for your moderation.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

pc86 9y ago

I am generally in favor of a smaller national government and my default position on a tax cut is positive until proven otherwise, yet I still understand how progressive tax structures work. I have many friends and associates who would be considered conservative even among other Republicans, and probably have inconceivably conservative viewpoints by most of HN's standards. And I don't think any of them would spend $150k just to keep $30k out of the government's hands. So yes I think if you're going to hurt yourself financially to make some token gesture toward the government that won't even show up on a budget spreadsheet because it's so small, that's either an extreme ideological viewpoint or you don't know how taxes work. "Never ascribe to malice" and all that. And individual taxes aside, corporate taxes should absolutely be lower, they're among the highest in the world.

baldfat 9y ago
> corporate taxes should absolutely be lower, they're among the highest in the world. Effective Rate So lets say Corporate Tax is a 20% flat tax from 35% the taxes would actually increase. Because they are actually paid at around 15% and no where close to highest in the world. We are actually on par or bellow the average tax rate across the world. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/04/24/trumps-corporate-tax-slash-ignores-how-litte-companies-already-pay/#239c8ff758aa https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/04/24/trumps-c... Personally I would love to see a drop of corporate federal taxes and place them more on the individuals. Tax the shareholder and those that profit from the corporations. The truth is this isn't happening and why we see the money continually going to the top and not filtering down. Corporations are incentivized to lower wages and benefits to extract more profit. As the economic disparity continues to climb and the burden is placed on the middle and lower class to support profit growth. Looking at taxes for the national safety net for the working poor, higher utilities bills, and higher medical expenses and insurance cost. None of these are of concern for the wealthy. We can't even have a conversation on what is fair for the working poor and instead we disincentive work in America. The "conservatives" today are just totally Libertarians who could careless if work is incentivized.

EdSharkey 9y ago

I've always thought of "trickle down economics" as an overly-rosy way of saying that we'll "grow our way out of the hole". Nevermind the 'conservatives' will never stop digging, will never cut spending, even occasionally spinning up another entitlement of their own, and only occasionally toss their people a bone by slowing existing programs' growth rate. I don't think Reagan thought of government size as being a problem since he grew it massively. I think he did rebel against bureaucracies and waste/fraud/abuse, at least rhetorically. Ultimately, the guy was a deal-maker, and he'd happily grow the government (with military at the forefront) if he could get his stimulative tax cuts. > Though I love throwing Reagan into the face of today's "Conservatives" they really would HATE Reagan today and his liberal ways. He was as liberal as JFK was, which is to say Reagan was your classic "govt can do some good here"-liberal. Today's true "liberals" are cultural marxists, which ultimately makes them toxic, hence their precipitous decline recently. If the libs could drop the culture war stuff and focus on labor issues and positive right-sized governing, they'd shoot back to popularity. Nothing will improve while power comes chiefly from dividing people and the hatred continues to flow. Reagan was a moral man and he was a good orator, making him a fine spokesman for America and raising our stock worldwide. That he could reassure and comfort people was the best part about him; the rest of Reagan was muddled goods and bads.

baldfat 9y ago
But Hillary wasn't a liberal. Liberals actually hated her. We are now in the world perception of Democrat = Liberal and Republican = Conservative and its just wrong. I grew up being a Republican and I don't think I have changed much in my political stances but everyone else has moved far to the Libertarian doctrine. Case in point: Increase the wages and benefits = less government funding. Never going to get backing from Republican Party in its present form. So instead we have this Corporation Welfare system where tax dollars for Walmart's benefits.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- walshemj 9y ago
  Actually both Hillary and Obama are one nation Tories ie centre right only Bernie might be considered left wing but would be considered a Blarite by hard line leftists.

dang 9y ago

This triggered the sort of low-rent political thread we don't want here. Please don't do that. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15862439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15862439 and marked it well off-topic.

EdSharkey 9y ago
I thought everyone was very respectful.
- dang 9y ago
  It's way off topic.
  - EdSharkey 9y ago
    Yes, it is. Thanks for your moderation.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]