The tax cuts for the wealthy frequently advocated by Republican politicians are viewed unfavorably by many voters, polls show. The Public Religion Research Institute, a nonpartisan group that conducts public-opinion surveys, found that 57 percent of Americans nationally, including over a third of Republicans, support increasing taxes on those earning at least $250,000 a year. By contrast, Brownback’s policies reduced them drastically.
Yet Dan Cox, the institute’s research director, said that Brownback’s defeat did not augur more victories for Republicans pursuing more moderate economic policies. He said Republican policymakers and their advisers around the country are likely to view the example of Kansas as a failure of implementation, rather than one of principle, and they will argue that Kansas’s experiment would have succeeded had the legislature reduced spending even more.
The Washington Post: Republicans are predicting the beginning of the end of the tea party in Kansas
As the saying goes, conservatism never fails, it is only failed.
Only 6 percent of businesses are traditional corporations subject to the corporate income tax, according to the Congressional Research Service.
And for those traditional corporations that are subject to the United States corporate tax rate, which at 35 percent is the highest in the world, there are myriad ways to avoid paying anything close to that. By taking advantage of a warren of credits, deductions and exemptions, corporations pay an average effective rate of just 12.6 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office.
David Gelles: Businesses Are Winning Cat-and-Mouse Tax Game
Sure, corporate whining about taxes seems ridiculous if you look at the facts. But if you ignore them, American corporations really have it tough.
So the richest quintile receives 33 times more federal money for their retirement accounts than the poorest quintile.
— Matt Bruenig: Our Enormous Retirement Subsidies for the Rich
But Dean P. Lacy, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College, has identified a twist on that theme in American politics over the last generation. Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates.
Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to support Democratic candidates. And Professor Lacy found that the pattern could not be explained by demographics or social issues.
—NYTimes: Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It (Binyamin Appelbaum & Robert Gebeloff)
Funny how that works.