The Republican stance more closely represents mine on the political issues that most concern me. I am pro-life, I support Israel, I am against affirmative action, and I am for reduced taxation. Since the Democratic platform is antithetical to these views, I vote for the party best able to keep the democrats out.
For me, the Republican Party comports with many of my core beliefs. Not all...but many. The most important to me is reduced taxation. I firmly believe that money is best used by the people that earned it. The current level of taxation is a new phenomenon. Prior to WW2, out tax rate hovered around 1%. Since 1941 we have seen our taxes increased up to 39.6 TIMES what they were 61 years ago. That's staggering. Does it surprise anybody that charitable contributions go up as the tax rate goes down? Charitable orgs throughout history have done the good work much more efficiently than government. Government should not be the be all and end all for people's needs. Maybe I am too optinistic about the good people of our nation. But that's just the way I am. I believe people have MORE choices when the tax burden isn't overly cumbersome. THAT is why I vote Republican.
Refman, I'm having problems going back to the year you chose 61 years ago. However, in 1944-45 the lowest income tax bracket was 23%, the highest 94%. historical income tax brackets 1944- present On the basis of this I believe that you are horribly in error on your claims of a 39 fold increase in taxation.
I lean to the right and usually vote straight republican. But that doesn't mean that I don't find some of the democrat's ideas appealing. What I like about both - Republicans a. Strong Military b. Lower Taxes (I know it's hard to have a and b.) Democrats a. Environment b. I don't mind a large government actually. I also wouldn't mind paying for national healthcare. Doesn't this exist somewhat already with Medicare, Medicaid, welfare? I also like a balanced budget, but don't mind deficit spending if needed. Now if we could just get these guys to do half of what they say they will....
Ref probably meant to say pre-WWI, not pre-WWII for the 1% tax rates he talked about. In fact, before 1913 there were NO income taxes in this great country. Here is a link that has the top and bottom tax brackets and income required for each from 1913-present. Notice the wild fluctuations in the top bracket. http://www.taxplanet.com/library/oldtaxrates/oldtaxrates.html I am a Republican because of their stance on taxes, their anti-affirmative action policies, their stong military stance, and their idea of less government is better.
Look, Ref, you're cool and I can deal with your views generally, but: no. No. No. For f*ck's sake, dude, NO. Did *no one* learn about the nineteenth century in industrial societies at school? It *sucked*. People *starved to death*. The vast majority of people died in debt with *nothing* left to their children. (If you go back further, to the early modern period, it was almost as bad (although people could work the land then, to be fair).) Children in orphanages died like flies. They were sent out to work in factories and got maimed by machinery because there was no government safety net! The charitable workhouse was the worst possible fate... I mean, your statement is just, plain, flatout wrong as wrong can be. OK, I feel better now.
Upon further reasearch I learned that taxes have quadrupled since 1940...my bad. But it is still absurd that we have had a quadrupling of the peacetime tax rate since 1940.
Upon further reasearch I learned that taxes have quadrupled since 1940...my bad. But it is still absurd that we have had a quadrupling of the peacetime tax rate since 1940. On the other hand, they've also gone down since 1950. There was a massive one-time spike during the war, and those rates never got un-done. However, there's no trend of tax increases or decreases by either party since then. According to the link bigtexx posted, the biggest cuts came during the JFK/LBJ era along with the Reagan era - one Democratic, one Republican administration. 1988 (Reagan/Bush) saw the first hike in the bottom-level tax rates since 1950, but also saw the massive decrease in top level rates. The Clinton era saw a relative decrease in tax rates from 1992-2000 (after a 1992 creation of a new high-end tax bracket) because the rates didn't change, but the brackets themselves went higher - meaning you paid less taxes on the same income. Of course, none of those includes the various side-taxes that have been created over the years (gas tax, etc). So what does all this mean? That these numbers show no real correlation between tax rates and party leadership.
One thing to keep in mind while doing this type of analysis is that tax cuts are usually implemented over time, and one administration's cuts could actually start taking effect during another administration. It would be very difficult to prove correlation based on these numbers, you're right, but to argue that the democrats are more focused on reducing taxes I believe to be incorrect.
You seem to be very convinced your stance is correct on this, but you offer little evidence to prove it except for some anecdotal tales from the 1800s. You're gonna have to do a better job of convincing us wise Republicans than the cursing and mad faces to get your point across. Links? Data? Evidence?
One thing to keep in mind while doing this type of analysis is that tax cuts are usually implemented over time, and one administration's cuts could actually start taking effect during another administration. It would be very difficult to prove correlation based on these numbers, you're right, but to argue that the democrats are more focused on reducing taxes I believe to be incorrect. Agreed - I didn't mean to imply Democrats are more focused on reducing taxes. But honestly, I don't think either party is really committed to the whole program - reducing taxes and reducing spending. Democrats use new spending to exploit voters' desire for more free stuff, but don't raise taxes to match those programs. Republicans use tax cuts to exploit voters' desire for more money, but don't ever make the necessary program cuts. As a result, both parties end up ballooning the debt/deficit until they are forced to raise taxes together. Neither party likes to raise taxes, but neither party is willing to do what's necessary to make a tax cut really work. Ultimately, both parties love to spend money - they just like to spend it on different things. The GOP just have been able to create the false impression that they don't like spending as much. [note that above, by Democrats and Republicans, I'm referring to the parties & politicans themselves, not the general voting public]
Because when people disagree with you, you conclude in quiet confidence way that you just know a better way. On the other hand, disagree with a Democrat and you'll find yourself being labeled selfish, immoral, amoral, greedy, uncaring... the list goes on!
I am a Republican because I hate minorities, I want to eliminate the middle class, and I want to declare war on the rest of the world. Besides, all us good Republicans know that the world would have been a better place had Strom Thurmond won the 1948 Presidential election!
