6 ms·

OK, put me on your list, I generally vote in favor of lower taxes for corporations and individuals.

by atemerev 8y ago

zelon88 8y ago
> I generally vote in favor of lower taxes for corporations and individuals. So like to have your cake and eat it too?
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  The implication is a smaller government and fewer public services. We could theoretically eliminate social security / medicare and immediately put extra money in people's pockets, but that would be disastrous for a number of reasons.
- civilian 8y ago
  How does that follow? You're assuming what kind of government services he votes for. He probably also favors less government spending.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    * on social programs, not the military - would be my guess
    - RHSeeger 8y ago
      What makes you think that? There's a lot of people that would prefer money go to social programs rather than the military, but would prefer the spending on both be reduced by spending money more effectively. The Pentagon Wars is a prime example of how many people think the government spends it's money, "yes, that billions, with a B".
    - civilian 8y ago
      You're projecting real hard. The left has become insanely pro-war. It's really sad what the media is doing to Tulsi Gabbard, who's the only anti-war presidential candidate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlXhRBsOwpA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlXhRBsOwpA
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > The left has become insanely pro-war No it has not, you're confusing neoliberals like Polosi with "the left", which is actually represented by people like Ro Khanna. The left, as in progressives, have been strong supporters of Tulsi and in fact she has backed Sanders over Clinton as well.
        civilian 8y ago
        That's fair. I mean, I did link to Jimmy Dore, I know there are some good anti-war progressives out there. (And, despite being a libertarian, I donated $100 to Tulsi's campaign as soon as she announced.) We might disagree with what "the left" means, which is fine. I use it to apply to "any Democrat or leftist-leaning independent". And it's just that Pelosi is freaking speaker of the house right now. The people and interests that are controlling the Democratic party are pro-war.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > I mean, I did link to Jimmy Dore Yeah, that's "the left" I would identify with. > We might disagree with what "the left" means, which is fine. I use it to apply to "any Democrat or leftist-leaning independent". That unfortunately hasn't been true for a long time. The Clinton "Third Way" doctrine basically means "we're centre right economically, don't hate gays and support abortion rights". That is why these kinds of democrats play identity politics so hard, (while smearing minority candidates, ironically enough). In the UK, the policy that closely represents the Democratic Party establishment is actually represented by a party called the Conservative Party, that should tell you something. > being a libertarian I am glad to hear that. While I probably massively disagree with you when it comes to social spending, I 100% agree however with libertarians on their anti-war stance as well as far as personal liberty goes in a large number of areas. > And it's just that Pelosi is freaking speaker of the house right now. The people and interests that are controlling the Democratic party are pro-war. I know, trust me as someone on the left, it's incredibly frustrating to be "represented" by such leadership.
justaaron 8y ago
So, essentially small businesses and lower/middle income folks will pick up the slack on the missing revenue, and in general in terms of the tax-base tilt: In essence you are excusing a heavy tilt for the large global corporations that 1) constitute monopolies, in many cases, which are anti-innovation and kill innovation, actually. 2) are killing mom-and-pop small businesses left and right. "lower taxes for corporations and individuals" which one is it? I've never seen a lower federal budget, and the "small government" party has brought us 2 wars costing over $7 trillion over 18 years, and a perpetual war on an emotion that has caused an INCREASE in governmental size and spending, overall. Can you explain your stance a bit?
- merpnderp 8y ago
  "essentially small businesses and lower/middle income folks will pick up the slack on the missing revenue" This is objectively untrue. The wealthiest taxpayers, who overwhelmingly make their money off of investments in companies like Amazon, pay nearly all of federal taxes. Just because Amazon doesn't pay taxes doesn't mean the people profiting off Amazon aren't paying taxes. A big reason why corporate taxes are dumb, since the money either grows the business or goes to individuals who pay taxes.
  - justaaron 8y ago
    This is objectively untrue. The wealthiest corporations and people overwhelmingly pay the LEAST share of taxes. Your shifting of the playing field smells like an excuse. 1) Whereas the federal budget has not been reduced. 2) Whereas the large monopolies and billionaires pay less (see: the $1.5 trillion tax cut for the top, and how it's hoarded rather than invested) tax therefore we are compensating for Amazon and Netflix etc paying less tax. Corporate taxes should grow with the size of the corporation. We should encourage small businesses as they spur innovation, mostly fail, and are the backbone of a stable economy, vs slave labor for globalized zombie corps like Amazon. https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/09/28/who-benefits-from-the-tax-cut-10-months-later/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/09/28/wh... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/now-we-know-how-major-corporations-are-spending-tax-cuts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/now-we-know-how-major-corpor... by all accounts, the opposite of an economic "pump" is when you give a tax cut to the already filthy rich. The tax base has been shifted to the middle and lower class. Plain and simple.

OK, put me on your list, I generally vote in favor of lower taxes for corporations and individuals.

zelon88 8y ago

> I generally vote in favor of lower taxes for corporations and individuals. So like to have your cake and eat it too?

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
The implication is a smaller government and fewer public services. We could theoretically eliminate social security / medicare and immediately put extra money in people's pockets, but that would be disastrous for a number of reasons.
civilian 8y ago
How does that follow? You're assuming what kind of government services he votes for. He probably also favors less government spending.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  * on social programs, not the military - would be my guess
  - RHSeeger 8y ago
    What makes you think that? There's a lot of people that would prefer money go to social programs rather than the military, but would prefer the spending on both be reduced by spending money more effectively. The Pentagon Wars is a prime example of how many people think the government spends it's money, "yes, that billions, with a B".
  - civilian 8y ago
    You're projecting real hard. The left has become insanely pro-war. It's really sad what the media is doing to Tulsi Gabbard, who's the only anti-war presidential candidate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlXhRBsOwpA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlXhRBsOwpA
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > The left has become insanely pro-war No it has not, you're confusing neoliberals like Polosi with "the left", which is actually represented by people like Ro Khanna. The left, as in progressives, have been strong supporters of Tulsi and in fact she has backed Sanders over Clinton as well.
      - civilian 8y ago
        That's fair. I mean, I did link to Jimmy Dore, I know there are some good anti-war progressives out there. (And, despite being a libertarian, I donated $100 to Tulsi's campaign as soon as she announced.) We might disagree with what "the left" means, which is fine. I use it to apply to "any Democrat or leftist-leaning independent". And it's just that Pelosi is freaking speaker of the house right now. The people and interests that are controlling the Democratic party are pro-war.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > I mean, I did link to Jimmy Dore Yeah, that's "the left" I would identify with. > We might disagree with what "the left" means, which is fine. I use it to apply to "any Democrat or leftist-leaning independent". That unfortunately hasn't been true for a long time. The Clinton "Third Way" doctrine basically means "we're centre right economically, don't hate gays and support abortion rights". That is why these kinds of democrats play identity politics so hard, (while smearing minority candidates, ironically enough). In the UK, the policy that closely represents the Democratic Party establishment is actually represented by a party called the Conservative Party, that should tell you something. > being a libertarian I am glad to hear that. While I probably massively disagree with you when it comes to social spending, I 100% agree however with libertarians on their anti-war stance as well as far as personal liberty goes in a large number of areas. > And it's just that Pelosi is freaking speaker of the house right now. The people and interests that are controlling the Democratic party are pro-war. I know, trust me as someone on the left, it's incredibly frustrating to be "represented" by such leadership.

justaaron 8y ago

So, essentially small businesses and lower/middle income folks will pick up the slack on the missing revenue, and in general in terms of the tax-base tilt: In essence you are excusing a heavy tilt for the large global corporations that 1) constitute monopolies, in many cases, which are anti-innovation and kill innovation, actually. 2) are killing mom-and-pop small businesses left and right. "lower taxes for corporations and individuals" which one is it? I've never seen a lower federal budget, and the "small government" party has brought us 2 wars costing over $7 trillion over 18 years, and a perpetual war on an emotion that has caused an INCREASE in governmental size and spending, overall. Can you explain your stance a bit?

merpnderp 8y ago
"essentially small businesses and lower/middle income folks will pick up the slack on the missing revenue" This is objectively untrue. The wealthiest taxpayers, who overwhelmingly make their money off of investments in companies like Amazon, pay nearly all of federal taxes. Just because Amazon doesn't pay taxes doesn't mean the people profiting off Amazon aren't paying taxes. A big reason why corporate taxes are dumb, since the money either grows the business or goes to individuals who pay taxes.
- justaaron 8y ago
  This is objectively untrue. The wealthiest corporations and people overwhelmingly pay the LEAST share of taxes. Your shifting of the playing field smells like an excuse. 1) Whereas the federal budget has not been reduced. 2) Whereas the large monopolies and billionaires pay less (see: the $1.5 trillion tax cut for the top, and how it's hoarded rather than invested) tax therefore we are compensating for Amazon and Netflix etc paying less tax. Corporate taxes should grow with the size of the corporation. We should encourage small businesses as they spur innovation, mostly fail, and are the backbone of a stable economy, vs slave labor for globalized zombie corps like Amazon. https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/09/28/who-benefits-from-the-tax-cut-10-months-later/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/09/28/wh... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/now-we-know-how-major-corporations-are-spending-tax-cuts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/now-we-know-how-major-corpor... by all accounts, the opposite of an economic "pump" is when you give a tax cut to the already filthy rich. The tax base has been shifted to the middle and lower class. Plain and simple.