why are lowering taxes are good?
111284
In therory lower taxes puts more money in YOUR pocket and you will spend more money. Ie, the economy works better. Higher taxes puts money in the US tresury and the so called ones looking out for us decide how to spend it. I'll take my chances and spend it myself if given the opportunity. \n\nThis is not a partisian statement, but traditionally the Democrats give it to assistant areas, but today in my opinion this is not a workable solution. We do need to help those who 'can't help themselves', but the lazy ass's that won't work or just wanna propagate need to be cut off.\n\nThe republicans tradtionally, give to business's who in therory create more jobs, ie, more people working.
781556
Because the idiots who listen to them are uneducated and illiterate and think that if they are on welfare and living off our taxes they shouldn't have to pay taxes.  I got a tax cut comparable to my income just like you did and just like EVERYONE did.
393834
The idea of "cutting taxes" or "tax breaks" for the rich is a myth.  The US has increasingly high tax brackets as income increases.  Somone who makes $1M pays a higher rate than someone that makes $25K.  There are several deductions that are available that are considered to be deductions for the rich, such as mortgage deductions, charitable donations, and others that many low income individuals do not incur.  These things lower the marginal tax rate, which is the rate that is paid after deductions.  \n\nA poor person who makes $15K gets is in the 10% bracket.  They still get a standard deduction of $5k if nothing else, so they pay 10% after that, or $1000 (a marginal rate of 6.7%, 3.3% lower than the bracket rate).\n\nA rich person makes $1M, but has deductions of $300K.  He is still in the 38% bracket, and pays that on the remaining $600k ($228K).  Against the million, he is actually only paying 22.8%, which is 15.2% lower than his bracket rate.  \n\nThis is where the "tax breaks for the rich" come in.  His deductions knock his rate down 15%, while the poor guy's gets dropped by only 3%.  What you have to remember, though, is that the rich guy is still paying 16.1% more of his income in taxes than the poor person.  This is why the rich pay something like 95% of the taxes in the country.  \n\nThe argument that you hear from Dems is playing to the poor who don't understand how the tax system works.  This is why a large number of the rich are Republicans - they think it is bad enough that they pay a higher rate than everyone else, but then the Dems say they are getting a break.
685614
Simple and profound!\n\nThe less taxes, the more gdp.\n\nCheck it out!
781651
If you think about it, they are. Since evrything is taxed these days, more use = more tax.
272978
Generally the benefits fall to the taxing authorities. It's a political ploy to garner votes and appear concerned for the "working class". When wages go up, prices go up because demand goes up. Simple Econ 101.  The people who truely don't get it also believe in the lottery, publishers clearinghouse and government aid. They've never heard of Newton's third law. Their best comeback is "you're stupid"
203971
Pros, everyone pays the same amount of tax.\nCons, everyone pays the same amount of tax.  (Its all relative, for low income individuals, paying 17% of their income in taxes would be a very large amount, but for a high income individual 17% is more money, but not as much of an issue.)  Just a basic answer.
1110032
I don't know the exact situation in Canada, but in general, the taxes there are higher to support the government programs, such as health care.  Giving the citizens a break on mortgage interest would lower their income and that's a source of revenue that they don't want to lose.
266036
We have to have taxes, there is no easy way around that.  But, we would be better off if our government uses our taxes more effectiveley.
341286
Not for long - the increased taxes would quickly slow the economy down and you'd either have to keep increasing taxes (screwing the economy), or cut the tax (defeating the purpose).
1128585
It's not a refund of their income tax.  \n\nIt's a refund of what they are estimated to have paid in other taxes, primarily sales taxes, for that year.  Since those taxes reduce the amount of resources people can buy, people on welfare have a very limited income with which to purchase things, and the taxes represent a much greater percentage of their income (being a flat-rate tax based on what you have to buy, not on what percentage you can afford to pay), the government assumes their income is low enough that the taxes represent an undue burden on them.  \n\nAs a result, it returns part of that money to them in order to help alleviate the burden.
342777
Because they get health care, pensions, the right to work for a decent wage in safe and respectful conditions, clean modern cities, efficient infrastructure that is well mantained, and a fairly responsive government.\n\nPlus they just have to visit the USA to see what happens if you refuse to pay taxes.
55006
Basically your standard deduction is doubled and your tax will be at a lower rate. If there are kids, you have more deductions depending on your income and their ages.
955629
I see a lot of hateful answers (Democrats are poor.  Democrats have no lives.  Democrats are Communists.) and I see a lot of decent answers about the rich getting tax breaks while the middle and lower classes make up the difference.  One answer that stood out to me, though, was Mis Managed's.  Do some of us pay taxes for schools while we don't have children?  I can see how this argument can go both ways.  I have no kids, so why should I pay the school taxes?  On the other hand, I care about the future of our society, so I would like our children to be taken care of.  The rich in our society should understand that we all need to help each other.  I don't think that a CEO of an oil company that retires with millions of dollars for the rest of his life is "working hard" for your money.  The rich wish to get richer while the poor just wish to get by.
959498
In theory, to make the tax burden fairer on tax payers.\n\nPoor pay less and rich pay more. ie 0% on first c£5000, 10% on next c£2000, 22% on next c£25000 and 40% thereafter.
202564
You have a good point there.  Yes, a flat tax would definitely be the best.  That way more people would be encouraged to start businesses, or expand their existing businesses, thus creating more jobs for everybody.\nThe current tax system is "supposed" to make the income more equal to everybody, when in fact it's the middle class that pays the most taxes - not the welfare people, 'cause they don't earn money, and not the business owners (which would be considered rich), 'cause of the write-offs allowed.  The people in favor of the progressive income tax are shooting themselves in the foot, and don't realize it.
758672
Yes, they are great for the economy. Tax cuts allow money to stay with in the private economy where Tax money is really pulled out of it and tied up in Government controlled ventures. Government controlled ventures have no real influences on the productivity of private industry, which is where money grows. \n\nThe more availability of resources, the more money is spent in areas that money wasn't spent in before, providing greater opportunity and resources for companies to expand and develop, not to mention provide new job opportunities. They don't do that if they aren't pulling in the resources to allow for it to happen. \n\nSo, the long and short of it, it's been proposed and done under Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush. It's how you can let the people have the resources to do with as they deem necessary. And because the people of the United States are amazing in their ability to grow and expand, it works like a charm every time.