Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[EverCurious]

I will abandon you nitwits to your socialist graves before I give 70% because you fucks can't get your shit straight and earn money for yourselves or stop fucking blowing money out your asses on dumb unprofitable shit. Me and mine are already paying fucking 70% of the damned bill for the nation, piss off.

If your that rich and don't like it, I suggest learning how to manage your money better. You could also move to Somalia where there is no government to tax you.

Go ahead and try to fleece my fucking kids to pay for your socialist/globalist pet projects and I will have no problem ditching the shit hole America would quickly become.

 

[Lesh]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

With NO tax deductions and loopholes...

do you think someone who would reach the 50% tax bracket...

pays half of all their income?

or...do you know how tax brackets actually work..

What are you babbling about. The discussion is about Federal tax rates

 

[U2Edge]

Yea right, like more taxation is going to somehow magically make this country more prosperous. At least that is what the Moon Bats think.

Back when we had a 70% tax rate the deductions were such that very few people ever paid at that rate.

Back then the total combined (federal, state and local) cost of government was less than 20% of GDP. Nowadays it is pushing 40%. Everybody paid fewer taxes, even the very rich that had an incremental rate of 70%.

The reason the economy grew so much was not because of the higher taxes at a 70% incremental rate for the very rich but because of the much lower burden on the economy for the cost of government at less than 20% of the GDP.

Well, if few people paid the 70% or 94% tax rates, there would be no reason to raise rates to that level. The top federal tax rate during World War II was 94%. Roosevelt and Truman felt such rates were effective in helping pay for defense, fund the government and work on reducing debt. The results showed they were right. Someone was paying that revenue because it did come into the government. We paid for multiple wars and reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP during the years from 1945 to 1980. Regardless of what you believe about people paying these rates, the revenue with these tax policies was obtained for the government and country benefited greatly.

Finally, if no one was paying a 70% tax rate in 1978, there would have been no reason or incentive to cut the top federal tax rate from 70% to 28% during the years 1980 to 1990.

 

[leftwinger]

too many tricks and gimmicks in current tax code for how dollars are taxed perhaps to make sense of it.

CA top rate is 13.3% (above $450K). Add that on to 70% + 1.125% property tax + 10% sales tax......and many others. The rich pay a lot but if you make $10mil you are able to get by?

Business tax code is way different?

 

[U2Edge]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

No, taxation is theft.

Without taxation, the United States and its powerful market would not exist. I suggest you move to Somalia where there is no government to tax you. See how you like it there after a few years, that is if your still alive after those few years.

I suggest you kiss my ass and stop looking for ways to pilliage productive people.

You will ruin the lives of productive people if you don't properly fund the United States government, the United States military, and deal with the debt problem and other issues facing society.

 

[G.T.]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

With NO tax deductions and loopholes...

do you think someone who would reach the 50% tax bracket...

pays half of all their income?

or...do you know how tax brackets actually work..

What are you babbling about. The discussion is about Federal tax rates

Correct.

If, say, the top bracket was 50%..

Im asking if you were aware that that doesnt mean 50% of your entire income..

but only 50% of the dollars that exceed that bracket's threshold..

most people seem to be ignorant of that.

A guy making 100k a year pays the same tax rate on his first 20k in income as someone making 30k a year.

Your income is taxed in a tiered system, not as an overall percentage, and many folks seem to be unaware of that.

 

[leftwinger]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

With NO tax deductions and loopholes...

do you think someone who would reach the 50% tax bracket...

pays half of all their income?

or...do you know how tax brackets actually work..

If you gross $10mil about $7mil would go to fed taxes if the top bracket started at $250K? Assuming no other huge secret write offs. There lies the catch.

The math is easy if you know the real numbers.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

So from 1940 to 1980, the rich were government slaves and suffering? Do you really think Elvis Presley lived the life of a SLAVE?

Of course you missed the point.
The whole basis of left wing economics is stealing.

 

[EverCurious]

Want to see a great exodus of wealth from the United States?

Keep electing morons like the op

Where was the great exodus from the United States from 1940 to 1980 when the tax rates were 70% to 94%? Did the Trump family leave the United States during that time? What country did Elvis Presley move to?

Different era dumbass

Historical fact that you are unable to refute. A lesson in good tax policy and how to get the country out of its debt problems and properly fund the government.

Historical fact that you chose to ignore; World Wars. A lesson in what bombing every other manufacturing nation on the planet can do.

How about we just bomb Europe and China out of existence then we can have all the manufacturing, aka all the money, again.

 

[U2Edge]

When the tax code had those high rates, it also had many exemptions and deductions that are no longer in it. No one ever paid 70% or 90% or anything close to that. Those exemptions and deductions were put in the code by rich congressbeings in order to help themselves and their contributors. Its good that they are gone and that we now have reasonable rates and a less discriminatory tax code. Returning to those high rates would force congress to reinstate the deductions and exemptions in order to protect themselves and their cronies. It would accomplish nothing.

If no one paid 70% or 90% there would have been no reason to raise the rates to those levels in the first place nor would there have been any incentive to cut them in the 1980s. The fact, is these top tax rates were raised and THEY SUCCESSFULLY brought in revenue that funded World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Cold War, while at the same time reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 121% in 1945 down to 33% by 1980. The United States was on much better financial ground in the 1970s than it is today. The difference is that the rich paid much higher taxes back then, than they do today.

 

[G.T.]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

With NO tax deductions and loopholes...

do you think someone who would reach the 50% tax bracket...

pays half of all their income?

or...do you know how tax brackets actually work..

If you gross $10mil about $7mil would go to fed taxes if the top bracket started at $250K? Assuming no other huge secret write offs. There lies the catch.

The math is easy if you know the real numbers.

Using what rate for the top bracket?

 

[leftwinger]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

No, taxation is theft.

Without taxation, the United States and its powerful market would not exist. I suggest you move to Somalia where there is no government to tax you. See how you like it there after a few years, that is if your still alive after those few years.

I suggest you kiss my ass and stop looking for ways to pilliage productive people.

You will ruin the lives of productive people if you don't properly fund the United States government, the United States military, and deal with the debt problem and other issues facing society.

Many argue they need to get house in order for us to willingly contribute more. Example A: govt pensions and salaries have morphed into the DC lottery.

 

[U2Edge]

A flat tax that applied to all income is the fairest kind of tax, all income, no deductions, applies to everyone. Make it 5% or 20%, but apply it equally to everyone and every penny of income. You could even have a floor below which no tax would be due in order to help low income people. But the floor should be quite low, maybe 10K/year.

I don't think our problem is how we are taxed. Any method of taxation with have its share of winners and loser. There is no such thing as "fair taxation". All taxation is unfair in some form or another.

The problem is that we spend too much money on the cost of government and therefore have to raise a ton of money, which winds up fucking everybody. Either directly or indirectly we all pay for this big bloated out of control government.

The real way to have tax reform is to stop spending so much damn money for the cost of government and to stop taxing the people so much.

Of course the welfare queens that suck off the teat of big government would hate that, wouldn't they?

The rich are the true welfare queens because they keep far too much money thanks to being lucky in the MARKET while the rest of the country struggles to defend it and essentially maintain rich peoples wealth levels. The idea that a CEO is more productive in one hour than the average worker is in an entire year is laughable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

Two things:

1. No
2. Mind your own fucking business

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Want to see a great exodus of wealth from the United States?

Keep electing morons like the op

Where was the great exodus from the United States from 1940 to 1980 when the tax rates were 70% to 94%? Did the Trump family leave the United States during that time? What country did Elvis Presley move to?

Different era dumbass

Historical fact that you are unable to refute. A lesson in good tax policy and how to get the country out of its debt problems and properly fund the government.

A historical fact is that outside of America post WW2 we were the economy left standing ya moron.

Times change idiot. People now leave the country over hissy fits because of elections. You think the same won't happen over PERSONAL money theft?

Ignorance

 

[Pilot1]

We have RECORD FEDERAL TAX REVENUE coming in right now. Why hurt economic expansion, growth and record employment by raising tax RATES?

Economic growth was better in the years from 1940 to 1980 when the top federal tax rates were above 70%.

U.S. Tax Policy, and Tax rates are only ONE FACTOR in what influences an economy. So correlation, doesn't equal causation. Tax policy can help but other factors like demand, monetary policy (the Fed), unemployment, wage increases, world economic issues, war, risk, etc are all factors.

Go back and try again.

 

[U2Edge]

I believe in reducing the tax burdens on the lower and middle classes because doing so translates into increase consumer spending which helps the economy. The problems is with income and wealth above 100,000 dollars. Rates for them should stay the same and then gradually increase as you go up the economic later with the top rate needing to be increased from 39% to 70%.

$100,000 isn't that much income depending on where you live, and if you have a family, or not. Higher tax RATES will only translate into a slower economy. It acts as anchor on people, and higher rates do NOT translate into higher REVENUE as the Economy SLOWS. We need economic expansion to increase Tax Revenue. That is why we are currently seeing RECORD FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE.

Have you any experience, or education in business, finance, or economics?

Most expensive place to live in the United States is Manhattan Island. In 2015, median household in come on Manhattan Island was $72,000 dollars a year. That means half of the households living in Manhattan were actually making less than $72,000 dollars a year, the other half above that. This is from the bureau of labor statistics. So $100,000 dollars were more the enough money to live in the most expensive place in the country, which means is way more than enough throughout most of the United States. If your struggling on $100,000 dollars, then its because you don't know how to manage money. Some people don't which means its unwise for them to have children or engage in other types of spending.

 

[leftwinger]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

When a person is paying more than 50% in taxes they are no longer working for themselves.
They have become a government slave.

With NO tax deductions and loopholes...

do you think someone who would reach the 50% tax bracket...

pays half of all their income?

or...do you know how tax brackets actually work..

If you gross $10mil about $7mil would go to fed taxes if the top bracket started at $250K? Assuming no other huge secret write offs. There lies the catch.

The math is easy if you know the real numbers.

Using what rate for the top bracket?

70% for example. 0.7*$9.75m + what paid on first $250K. I am not on a PC to easily cut paste math equations. I am not working that hard on Sat. Again, if no other big deductions.

I stand by my comment 75000 pages of tax law is too complicated. Trump took step 1 to simplify but not enough it seems?

 

[Lesh]

I just realized that a lot of readers and poster don't understand how a progressive tax system works.

EVERYONE pays the same per centage on the income they make (not accounting deductions etc.)

The first $40K that a person making millions is taxed at exactly the same rate as someone who ONLY makes $40K

The dollars earned between $40K and $100K are taxed at the same per centage as someone who ONLY earns $100K and on up

Effective tax rate includes all of their brackets.

So the effective tax rate on someone making $100K would be different. That $40-$100K might be taxed at (for arguments sake...I'm not looking it up right now) 30% but that first $40K might be taxed at 0% making the effective rate considerably lower than 30%

 

[Flash]

Yea right, like more taxation is going to somehow magically make this country more prosperous. At least that is what the Moon Bats think.

Back when we had a 70% tax rate the deductions were such that very few people ever paid at that rate.

Back then the total combined (federal, state and local) cost of government was less than 20% of GDP. Nowadays it is pushing 40%. Everybody paid fewer taxes, even the very rich that had an incremental rate of 70%.

The reason the economy grew so much was not because of the higher taxes at a 70% incremental rate for the very rich but because of the much lower burden on the economy for the cost of government at less than 20% of the GDP.

Well, if few people paid the 70% or 94% tax rates, there would be no reason to raise rates to that level. The top federal tax rate during World War II was 94%. Roosevelt and Truman felt such rates were effective in helping pay for defense, fund the government and work on reducing debt. The results showed they were right. Someone was paying that revenue because it did come into the government. We paid for multiple wars and reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP during the years from 1945 to 1980. Regardless of what you believe about people paying these rates, the revenue with these tax policies was obtained for the government and country benefited greatly.

Finally, if no one was paying a 70% tax rate in 1978, there would have been no reason or incentive to cut the top federal tax rate from 70% to 28% during the years 1980 to 1990.

The total cost of government was a lot less then. Not as money needed to be colleted.

WWI was mostly paid for by a tax on telephones and the new income tax. WWII was mostly paid for by debt. The Cold War was funded mainly by the post WWII economic boom.

By the way JFK knew that the post WWII economic boom needed to be sustain by lower taxes so he initiated a lower income tax rate.

We need to collect taxes for the few necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

The problem comes from having a massive government that heavily taxes the people for unnecessary government expenditures like welfare, subsidies, bailouts and grants. I mean who in their right mind would want to be taxed so that some scumbag illegal can get food stamps or that GM can get subsidies to pay off the the filthy ass UAW pensions?