Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one has ever claimed there should never be increase in taxes and spending. It boils down to why,how much and who will benefit from the increase. When taxes are raised to improve roads, protect our country, build better schools, and some other reasons, most of us can live with that, especially when the increase is across the board. The problem is: taking from the rich to give to the poor.
So, as long as poor people don't benefit it's all good? Is that what you are saying?
Here's the thing: while those poor people don't really have very much to contribute to this effort, they will likely be hardest hit since, as has been noted, it will likely be fees, sales tax, etc. that get raised before any effective income tax rate that would impact higher earners.
Of course it won't be their neighborhoods or schools that are improved first since they collectively have no voice, or least not one that will be heard as they have nothing to contribute to campaign coffers.
But of course, they will end up paying a larger share of their available income.
OP, I am glad to see some of these folks finally facing reality but the devil will be in the details.
Republican here; taxes are neither inherently good nor bad, they just "are".
We only demand they be equitable, fair, spent wisely, and as low as possible to not impede economic activity.
Sometimes they do have to go up through no ones fault; this is OK. It's when there is a chronic overspending or fiscal mismanagement and taxes have to cover it we have a problem.
So, as long as poor people don't benefit it's all good? Is that what you are saying?
It appears as though he is saying that everybody who benefits from infrastructure should help pay for infrastructure instead of just looking for one group to go after.
This is hardly earth shattering news. The article cites 8 of 31 GOP govs who support tax increases--only 26%. Several of them are in blue states, for example Rick Snyder (R, MI) is in a state that went 54-45 for Obama in 2012. Nikki Haley proposes a gas tax increase to be 100% offset by an income tax reduction, so that is arguably not a tax increase, just a tax shift.
Much of the discussion is about roads and bridges, which most Republicans have always accepted as a fundamental function of gov't.
There is one name conspicuously absent from the list of 8: Gov. Scott Walker (R, WI).
Much of the discussion is about roads and bridges, which most Republicans have always accepted as a fundamental function of gov't.
Exactly. Levy gas taxes on people to build toll roads handed over to private business to levy toll taxes on people.
And shifting burden off "incomes" to tax everybody more (regressive taxation) has always been a right wing mantra (globally, not just limited to the USA). It is easy for a business man to reduce his taxes by showing gasoline as a business expense than it is for his employees.
Exactly. Levy gas taxes on people to build toll roads handed over to private business to levy toll taxes on people.
And shifting burden off "incomes" to tax everybody more (regressive taxation) has always been a right wing mantra (globally, not just limited to the USA). It is easy for a business man to reduce his taxes by showing gasoline as a business expense than it is for his employees.
If you're going to respond to someone's post, at least respond to what they posted. Don't shove all those words into my mouth.
If you're going to respond to someone's post, at least respond to what they posted. Don't shove all those words into my mouth.
Excuse me for assuming you'd posted about the kind of taxes republicans do support. I provided specific examples to a couple you mentioned: income tax and gas tax.
And I'd also assumed you'd know what gas tax is expected to be used for. Sadly, my assumptions appear to be off. Would you please clarify what your post was about if not these?
And since you did respond to my post, going by your words, coming off your mouth... I must also assume that you hated my response. What specific points was this hate directed at?
Governor Sandoval, in laying out his tax increase plan to the Nevada Legislature, said he expected it to face opposition, but argued that the state needed to do something to improve its education system.
If Republicans were distressed by Governor Sandoval’s speech, Democrats were nothing short of ecstatic. “I never thought I’d see the day when a Republican governor was proposing all the things we’ve been proposing for the last 20 years,” said State Senator Moises Denis, a Democrat from Las Vegas.
This was a major mistake on Sandoval's part. Nevadans have consistently shot down any new tax, and we'll keep doing it - it doesn't matter who proposes it. All Sandoval has done is hurt himself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
