Romney or Obama and why

[SamuelRSmith]

bannedagain said:

SamuelRSmith said:

Mr Khan said:
Obama, just because somebody needs to stand in the way of the nuts in the House and their "cut everything but the military" attitude.

No great fan of Obama personally, but its a sad case of Democrats being categorically better than the alternative.

Why doesn't the Dem controlled Senate propose a budget (you know, like they're supposed to) that actually cuts stuff that the Dems would want to cut? You know, like some forms of military spending?

Oh, yeah, that's why: because, despite all their rhetoric, Dems like military spending as much as the GOP.

Why don't they just raise revenue and raise tax's on  the people who don't pay tax's.   Then we don't have to cut. 

Because, in the long run, it doesn't matter what the tax rate is. The revenue sticks at 18% of GDP. The more taxes you raise on the poor (that is, the people who don't currently pay tax), the fewer people who go to work. The more taxes you raise on the rich, the fewer people who will actually pay the full rate (finding means, either legal or illegal, to reduce their taxes).

Believe it or not, people don't like to be taxed. And once it gets to a certain point, people will go through hell-on-earth to avoid them. In the UK, we introduced a 50% tax rate on those earning over £150k... do you know what happened? The amount of tax that was collected actually DROPPED. Why? Because at that point, people started saying "fuck that" and went through means to not pay any taxes at all (or, vastly reduced). The Government has since dropped that rate to 45%... but I doubt it will help anything, the bracket just needs to be scrapped entirely.