I agree with low taxes but that NEEDS to be paired with government spending cuts. You cant tax less and spend more. Stop giving major tax cuts to corporations. That corrupt as fuck if you give tax cuts to a cooperation that then funds your campaign. This goes to both sides but I find it worse on republicans. We need major spending and tax reforms. Cut government waste, less monopolies, more competition, if a cooperation cant survive then let it be replaced. There no reason we should be subsidizing oil drilling or fracking.
I might sound liberal as fuck but if you make billions yes you should pay more "beer" tax dollars. Maybe incentive the trickle down effect more instead of making a few mega rich people/ corporations.
What you posted here is EXACTLY, almost VERBATIM, what the Democrats said when Ronald Reagan was elected on the heels of an oil/energy crisis, banking interest rates above 20%, inflation at over 13%, and welfare spending at state and federal levels at an all time high. Reagan lowered taxes across the board, INCREASED military spending to unprecedented levels (I was lucky to begin active duty just after the raises kicked in, so I didn't have to experience the embarrassingly low wages of the military pre-Reagan), and set in motion a recovery that beat all previous recovery records.
Under Reagan, we had unbelievable economic growth, the lowest tax rates in decades, and a budget SURPLUS. Here's a little secret: when more people are employed, and everyone is making and investing more of their own money, they pay MORE in taxes and receive LESS in government assistance. It's a simple binary concept: you are either contributing to the system and not taking from it, or you are taking from it and not contributing. The more we have contributing, the more revenue there is and the less gov't spending there is.
Hopefully you can see how this is a very simple yet solidly true principle. Lowering taxes to increase tax revenue was totally counterintuitive to tax-and-spend Democrats, and they predicted Lions and Tigers and Bears from Reagan's "dangerous" increased spending on top of lower tax rates.
In the end, Reagan had to give the Dems the tax programs they wanted in order to get the minimum of the things he needed in the budget. The Dems are historically notorious for promising spending cuts later in exchange for higher taxes now. Of course, the taxes go up immediately, but the cuts never happen -- in fact, just the opposite. With the increased taxes, they budget in ever increasing spending. Reagan put a halt to that by refusing to sign any budget that didn't include the spending he wanted and the tax cuts he knew the economy needed.
The Dem spending is why it's now recorded that Reagan's tax cuts reduced revenue 6%. That totally ignores the fact that millions were no longer out of work, and the oil industry in the US that was destroyed by OPEC came roaring back. Additionally, the Cold War was over right after Reagan left office, completely due to the fact the Soviets could not match our military spending levels. A lot of money put in the right places for a few years saved us countless billions preparing for the inevitable nuclear conflict between the US and USSR.
So, how you personally fared in a tax cut is irrelevant in the big national picture. Corporations, independent businessmen and women, and mom & pop size businesses all get tax breaks that equate to stable prices, constant turnover of product, and employment for workers. For every dollar the government takes by force, they spend more than half of it feeding the system that takes and spends that dollar. Give them $1M, and they spend $500K for accounting, regulatory compliance, managers, workers and facilities -- all to spend the remaining $500K. And, once they start taking taxes for a new program, that program will never die. Money is a drug for DC. The more they get, the more they need.