1) they don't increase jobs
2) they fuel more reckless spending by the government
3) they convince many slackers that the government can continue reckless spending since there is "more revenue" and those slackers continue to demand more reckless spending
4) the dems can use it to fuel the class warfare and envy that gets many ne'er do wells to vote dem
no one has yet to come close to proving high marginal tax rates are responsible for growth
we had high rates in the 50s when the USA was the only functioning industrial power after the war and we had huge growth as we supplied most of the world with machine tools etc
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
8 of the Top 10 Presidents in terms of job growth were Democrats.
8 of the Bottom 10 are Republicans. If you take Obama out and don't count him until his term is finished, then you have 9 of the Bottom 10 being Republicans.
Who has better policies?
Taxpayers didn’t respond kindly to this abuse. In the 1990 congressional midterms, Republicans lost eight seats, while Mr. Bush was shown the door after only one term. Lawmakers would be wise to heed the lessons learned the hard way by those who break tax pledges.
The first President Bush wasn’t the only Republican to buy into the fallacy of a bipartisan budget deal that promises spending cuts in exchange for tax increases. President Reagan signed into law the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, brokered with Democrats to cut spending and raise taxes. This “deal” promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
That spending restraint was never realized, either. Instead, the resulting tax increase was the largest in peacetime history, making up almost 1 percent of GDP. This $37.5 billion tax increase did nothing to shore up the spending deficit - in fact, the deficit jumped from 4 percent of GDP in 1982 to 6 percent in 1983 and did not dip back below 4 percent until after the tax reform enacted in 1986, when it dropped 1.8 percentage points to 3.2 percent in 1987.
CORRAO: It's the spending, stupid - Washington Times
And now for you listening and viewing enjoyment:
Welfare-queen states - The Washington Post
You can see the wholse chart at:Happily, the Tax Foundation — a conservative Washington-based think tank — has, however unintentionally, provided the answer. In 2007, the foundation published a survey of 2005 federal spending in each state and compared that with each state’s contribution in federal taxes. In other words, the foundation identified the states that sponge off the federal government and those that subsidize it. The welfare-queen states and the responsible, producing states, as it were.
The list, alas, hasn’t been updated — in part, no doubt, because conservatives didn’t like what it revealed: that those states that got more back from our government than they paid in were overwhelmingly Republican. The 10 biggest net recipients of taxpayers’ largess were, in order, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky and Virginia. The 10 states that paid in the most and got back the least were New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York and Colorado.
The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005