1) Because then half the country can vote for endless government spending with no cost to themselves.
The statement assumes a direct, one-to-one relationship between tax burden and voting behavior. It implies that a person's decision to vote for or against government spending is
solely or primarily determined by whether they personally pay for it through federal income tax. There is zero evidence that people in the bottom 50% vote so they can benefit from "endless government spending".
When most people don't pay taxes
Most people
do pay taxes, sales tax, state and local taxes, and payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) and depending on your state there can be other fees (e.g. Maryland has a fire and rescue fee that is tacked on to your registration). And those taxes can be very significant portion of a persons income.
When you tax something you get less of it. Punishing the most productive members of society with nearly all the taxes shrinks the pie for everyone. And remember,
economic growth compounds just like interest - shave even a little off yearly growth, and over decades you've destroyed trillions in future wealth:
This is silly supply side nonsense. We can just flip this around and point the bottom 50% spend close to 100% of the income they receive. By increasing taxes on this group the result is that the bottom 50% will spend less, dollar for dollar, or perhaps even more than dollar for dollar, as there are other carry on effects that can result. The same is not true of the top 50%, specially, the top 10%. From experience, if I were to come into $50k, I wouldn't run out and spend it, I would save it. Savings, by definition is
not spending, savings does not increase demand. While it takes investment (a form of savings) to create businesses, Investment relies on demand, this policy would reduce overall demand and increase investment, which would likely look for returns outside this country.
To say nothing of how less money in the bottom 50% would result in increased homelessness, children without access to education and medical care, increases in crime....and on and on and on, all of which have costs, and those costs are likely to far exceed the amount that might be collected from the bottom 50%.
Basic fairness. When a group splits a pizza, only a fool, or a communist, says everyone should chip in "according to their ability" like a goddamn Marxist instead of paying their share.
Only a Libertarian would say that 2 people in the group should be able to buy
the whole pizza and threaten to let everyone else starve unless they agree to be ruthlessly exploited, AND since there's only enough for 4 other people and there are ten people in the group, 4 people will be left out resulting in complete chaos, infighting, violence and harm as 8 people fight for 4 spots.
What a morally bankrupt, abhorrent and disgusting view.
