OK, put me on your list, I generally vote in favor of lower taxes for corporations and individuals.
"lower taxes for corporations and individuals" which one is it?
I've never seen a lower federal budget, and the "small government" party has brought us 2 wars costing over $7 trillion over 18 years, and a perpetual war on an emotion that has caused an INCREASE in governmental size and spending, overall.
Can you explain your stance a bit?
This is objectively untrue. The wealthiest taxpayers, who overwhelmingly make their money off of investments in companies like Amazon, pay nearly all of federal taxes. Just because Amazon doesn't pay taxes doesn't mean the people profiting off Amazon aren't paying taxes. A big reason why corporate taxes are dumb, since the money either grows the business or goes to individuals who pay taxes.
Your shifting of the playing field smells like an excuse.
1) Whereas the federal budget has not been reduced.
2) Whereas the large monopolies and billionaires pay less (see: the $1.5 trillion tax cut for the top, and how it's hoarded rather than invested) tax
therefore we are compensating for Amazon and Netflix etc paying less tax.
Corporate taxes should grow with the size of the corporation. We should encourage small businesses as they spur innovation, mostly fail, and are the backbone of a stable economy, vs slave labor for globalized zombie corps like Amazon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/09/28/wh...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/now-we-know-how-major-corpor...
by all accounts, the opposite of an economic "pump" is when you give a tax cut to the already filthy rich.
The tax base has been shifted to the middle and lower class. Plain and simple.
Here’s a summary of CBO data [1]. IRS also posts much more detailed tax stats with the same results.
[1] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-averag...
The "small government" party was in power that entire time? Why weren't they voted out and replaced by a party that wanted to end these disastrous and costly wars?
Because the USA only has 2 historically significant parties and both mainstreams want wars? I mean, the US has a concept of "bipartisanship", as if the entire political spectrum could be boiled down to ultra liberalism or slightly less ultra liberalism.
Fixing that might be nice, but is probably also a distraction from more urgent matters... since it would be very expensive (in terms of political capital) to make parties give up their own monopoly.
The UK has multiparty democracy of sorts with FPTP; the US Presidential system (as opposed to a Parliamentary system) reinforces and more strongly nationalizes the local duopoly effect that FPTP naturally encourages.
You could argue the duopoly prevents extremism by straightjacking the political options, but after the Tea Party takeover the GOP and now Trump, that has been thoroughly debunked.
But France doesn't use simple one-round FPTP for either the Presidential or legislative elections, and doesn't combine the elections, either, using a two-rond majority-runoff system for each election (with additionally what amounts to a minimum threshold by eligible electorate size, rather than just share of turnout, for legislative seats for first-round wins.) Majority-runoff has a far less strong push to duopoly thaneither simple FPTP or the US Presidential election system.
It's not purely a cultural thing; to the extent it's cultural, it's largely cultural adaptation to structural incentives.
> You could argue the duopoly prevents extremism by straightjacking the political options, but after the Tea Party takeover the GOP and now Trump, that has been thoroughly debunked.
I wouldn't have argued that in the first place for other reasons, but Trump would, at worst, only debunk an absurdly absolutist version of that; electoral systems may structurally disfavor certain outcomes but they rarely absolutely prevent any particular ideological outcome.
So like to have your cake and eat it too?
He probably also favors less government spending.