Why do most republicans oppose higher taxes?

Many western countries have higher tax rates than the U.S.     

133 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 week ago
    Favourite answer

    Because higher tax's hurt the poor and and help no one but rich liberals that make money off the agendas  that they have and need to tax the heck out off you to get them done.

  • Stilty
    Lv 4
    1 week ago

    Who doesn't want lower taxes? It's annoying the gov takes my money and uses it to bomb other countries and pay for other people's kids, I neither have nor want children so why am I paying for everyone else's mess?

  • JSC
    Lv 6
    1 week ago

    Because it doesn't benefit the rich. Sad those that have it don't want to give there fair share. The repeal of the Social Security payroll tax as proposed by President Donald Trump without putting in place a new source of funding for Social Security would mean disability payments would end in mid-2021 and payments to the elderly would stop in 2023, according to the program’s chief actuary.

    Trump’s recent talk of getting rid of the payroll tax permanently would endanger the politically popular pension program, and presidential son Donald Trump Jr. lauded that night in his Republican convention address the executive order on the suspension of payroll-tax collection.

    The White House has argued that Trump only wanted a temporary holiday, not a permanent payroll-tax repeal, despite Trump’s own words: He has suggested that, if re-elected, the tax’s suspension would become permanent.

    THE FACTS: It is highly unlikely that economic growth would be enough to offset the loss of the payroll tax. Indeed, Trump suggested that his 2017 income tax cuts would propel economic growth as high as 6% annually. That never happened. Growth reached 3% in 2018, then slumped to 2.2% and the U.S. economy crumbled into recession this year because of the coronavirus.

    Source(s): Market Watch
  • Anonymous
    1 week ago

    Everyone wants what taxes pay for but no one wants to pay them. The debate over taxes that have the parties at odds is largely about what is a fair share for the elite to pay. Both gwb and trump engineered irresponsible tax breaks heavily weighted for the elite that ballooned the deficit. The dems want to get that money back but leave the tax breaks in place for the rest of us. Obama let the gwb tax breaks expire at $400K (he was shooting for $250K but compromised).

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 week ago

    Taxes hurt poor people 10x more than rich people. Wealth tickles down, but taxes come down like a sledge hammer on your head. The only people taxes benefit are the government class or the welfare class, they absolutely destroy the working class.

  • 1 week ago

    I can only speak for myself but it has to do with the "purpose" of taxation plus all the other hidden taxes and fees that governments charge in addition to "income" tax. One of the many problems with paying taxes is that governments tend to be overly "wasteful" with their spending.

    Think of the government as someone that continuously makes bad investments and paying themselves to do so and keeps asking you for "more" money due to their incompetence.

    Another problem is with what taxes get attached to, with the worst in my opinion being "property tax" where nobody actually owns their property since you pay this tax not only as long as you supposedly own the property but it goes up based on what the government says your property is worth, where simply adding a privacy fence can raise the value, thus your taxes.

    While I could do this all day, the next crucial tax is Corporate tax where any municipality is in competition to draw an economy to their district, meaning to draw "businesses" that will produce the economy for governments to tax in the first place. Average people don't understand that higher taxes leads to companies leaving for places with "lower" taxes. One clear example happening now are companies leaving the states of California and New York for more tax friendly states. Companies also leave the U.S. for countries with lower taxation. Governments can literally tax their economies right out of existence and a 100% taxation on 0 income is 0.

    Average people who think you can tax the rich don't consider they can move or just pass the cost to the working class in the form of higher costs of our products and services. If you want to be fair, you need to consider how much of your money you want stolen if you became rich. The reason there is incentive to work is because there is money to be made that you get to "keep". What is the incentive for someone to produce a billion dollars a year if they only get to keep a million and the rest just goes to lining someone else's pockets who did "nothing" to contribute.

    To wrap this up, everyone recognizes a need for taxes, but we need "competent" government to create realistic budgets and don't waste "our" money that they believe is "theirs". Taxes can be used to curb or promote behaviors because for most people, they have a "budget" where paying higher taxes on gas means you have less money to go else where, thus promoting buying cars with better gas mileage.

  • 1 week ago

    YOU MUST BE A LIBERAL BECAUSE THEY ARE ALWAYS WANTING RAISE TAXES

    WE ARE ALREADY PAYING WAY TOO MUCH FOR ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS

  • Ann
    Lv 6
    1 week ago

    Most western countries are socialist. The government takes care of everything. We are not socialist. The rich, who can afford it, will simply leave and take their jobs with them. The poor doesn't pay taxes. The Middle Class can't afford it. If you want to give the government more money, they won't send it back. I'd rather decide what I do with the money I earn.

    @Not: Yeah it IS self-serving. I make the money; I should decide what I do with it. Again, if you want to give the government more money, do it. But you won't, will you? Isn't that "self-serving?"

  • 1 week ago

    It is based on an economic theory which is self-serving and goes something like this: government is awful at just about everything, so by cutting taxes--especially on the wealthy--more money floats in the private sector and that extra money is invested, by the wealthy and wealthy institutions, into businesses which grow the economy and provide jobs for a broad section of the population which creates prosperity. Problem is, it ain't that simple. 

    Decades of tax cuts have only underfunded key social service needs (public health, to name one), increased wealth inequality exponentially,  and allowed the wealthy and well-connected to put their money into places to maximize return on investments which include off-shore enterprises. Add to that automation, because back in the old days, a wealthy entrepreneur could invest in factories and distribution centers to sell his/her products providing jobs to a vast number of local people. Today, you don't need vast numbers of people to produce your products: fewer people, lower pay for those you do hire--perhaps in another country, and technology does much of the work. Also, machines don't get sick, take vacations, have sick kids, complain, etc, plus you have a global marketplace as you aren't just dependent on local consumers--what's not to love!! 

    I thought Andrew Yang, the former Presidential candidate has some great ideas on this subject and I also like the idea of turning many of those larger corporations into majority employee-owned and worker cooperatives to broaden wealth ownership as well. Anyway, all of that to say, it's an economic theory which is increasingly showing its own bankruptcy, but there are still true believers. For believing in something despite increasing evidence to the contrary, they qualify for membership in the flat earth society 

  • 1 week ago

    Taxes are abused to pay for FAR too many unconstitutional things intended solely to buy votes for professional, pandering politicians (if that's not redundant) to stay in office.  Things like the communist welfare state programs, interference in health care, education, housing, saving failing companies from themselves, foreign aid absent a treaty (which should require accounting for every penny sent), any assistance for criminal migrants beyond immediate deportation, "loans" of any type to any entity, or any financial assistance to any entity for instance, are NOT authorized by any part of the Constitution.  These are all things better left not done or done by the individual states.  I prefer being able to decide for myself how to spend what I EARN rather than have a bunch of panderers telling me I'm somehow responsible for feeding, clothing, housing, educating and medicating every bastard born to every school girl in America and half the world.  "Many western countries" also have more socialist governments and live with fewer freedoms that Americans.  What freedoms are you willing to surrender, along with more of your paycheck (assuming you've ever had one), just so the government can tell you how to live?

    To "me", the United States is NOT a "democracy".  It is a "republic" so your little rant is meaningless.

  • Anonymous
    1 week ago

    Republicon leadership earn more than $400,000 per annum, the natural breaking point in this economy, and the mass of the followers just fall in line even though they'd be paying nothing under Biden and PLUS getting absolutely free health care and free college. Those who earn less than $400,000 and still fear "socialism" as a kind of Bogie word are the Republicons' glad fools.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.