Yes, across the board.
Yes, for infrastructure.
Yes, for education. (K-12)
Yes, for job creation.
Yes, for social programs.
Yes, for medical care.
Yes, for the environment.
Yes, but... not for some particular programs (please elaborate).
No. None. Not for anything at all.
Undecided. Convince me either way.
I guess I might be willing to pay higher taxes if the Federal Government first cut all the things in which they shouldn't be involved (in my opinion). And, then, gave my state back its surplus. Then, they reduced my tax burden to what it should be based on what was left. Then, starting there, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes for specific programs with a term on them - like for a specific defense program, etc.
And, I'd be willing to pay higher local taxes, too, in order to make up for anything that people in my city, county, or state wanted to replace that in which the Federal Government was no longer involved to some level - again, with a term on it.
I'm not happy about the amount of taxes I pay now. But, I'd be much happier paying even the same amount if the majority of it was staying local.
The US is an odd ship. The captain yells out when he sees obtacles , but 535 individual propellers do the steering.
*- The blackmail is necessary because what they are demanding is technically unconstitutional so they cannot literally dictate it. "If you don't do as we say, we'll take away your <insert project/program here> funding."
Numbers from the Heritage Foundation show the U.S. percentage of taxation to GDP to be pretty much middle of the road (26.9% out of a range from 1.4% to 69.7%).
Also, they rank the U.S. 9th out of 179 countries in economic freedom (Hong Kong is ranked first, North Korea last).
Would you care to expound on how that is "reprehensible"?
Extending person hood related measures and privileges to Corporate heads has been an ongoing practice since the early 1800's. In some ways they have it and in some ways they don't.
It's not like it's a new bastard of an idea or something - it's been slowly occurring with each ruling over the last two centuries.
In some ways it limits or enables what they can and cannot do - but it also enables them to be held more individually accountable for some of their actions by government and law.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
14th Amendment (section 1): All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If, as I have heard it argued, the words "any natural person" had been used in place of "any person", corporations today would have no right of free speech.