Do Trump voters support reducing the taxes of rich Americans and wealthy companies?

Hard to say, as I have never encountered a Trump voter. I think they exist an orange fog where policies are just vague shapes in the murk.

From polls I’ve seen, raising taxes on the rich is extremely popular among Democrats, Independents and more than half of Republicans. Obviously not all Republicans are Trump voters, but it’s still pretty good predictor. So I would think the answer is that I’m sure there are some Trump voters who support reducing taxes of rich Americans and wealthy companies, most don’t.

They would argue that they want to reduce taxes for everyone, not just the rich. But that’s sort of disingenuous, because the lower economic classes don’t have the income to be taxed in the first place.

There’s another right wing canard that corporations shouldn’t be taxed because they simply are middlemen in delivering good to people. Which is total bullshit.

It’s not as simple as wanting higher or lower taxes. What are you trying to accomplish with the tax. For instance corporate taxes will affect how competitive we are throughout the world Raising corporate taxes will make us less competitive lowering taxes will make us more competitive. So if you want business to move their plant to the US lower corporate taxes will make us more business friendly and accomplish that. So when you ask if I want big business to pay lower taxes, the truth is I don’t give a rats ass what GM’s tax rate is but I do have a vested interest in whether they build their plant here or over seas. Lower taxes will incent them to build here.

I’m a big fan of a flat tax. Everyone…individual, corporation, etc…pays 10% on their gross with no deductions. No different rates for married couples, no child tax credits, no corporate deductions for operating expenses or advertising, dividends from stocks…everything is on the gross. And if we did that we could effectively reduce the IRS to a fraction of the size it is now. It is easy to see if someone isn’t giving 10%.

More important than raising taxes on one group or another is how the tax dollars are spent. Our government has shown gross incompetence and corruption when it comes to wasting money.

The Democrats love to use the talking point about taxing the rich and the corporations as the end-all, be-all of the problems in this country. It isn’t. When you raise taxes on corporations it hurts the economy, not helps the economy. The companies don’t hire, or may even fire, employees, they don’t invest in the companies as much for growth, their overall costs go up so the cost of their end products goes up…it’s an ugly thing.

There are some Republicans who are smart enough to remember the days of the great conservative Eisenhower who understood the principles of conservatism and that in order to conserve wealth in a nation you need to implement progressive taxation schedules and then invest that money into the American people through funding education and social programs. This strategy was at the height of anti-communism fervor and the top marginal tax rate was 90%. America was experiencing some of the highest growth it ever has and the GINI wealth coefficient was much more egalitarian.

And then some economists came up with a radical idea that honest conservatives called voodoo economics, that you could drop taxe rates and it would ultimately generate even more tax revenue and that wealth would trickle down. And so they flattened the progressive tax curve, slashed investments in the people and not only has the wealth NOT trickled down, it’s trickled up. The disparity between rich and poor is extreme

And yet some want to see it get even more extreme with a flat tax. It boggles the mind.

@gorillapaws – Comparing the economy of the 50s and 60s is not a valid test. Eisenhower was on the heels of WWII and most of the world had been destroyed. The US was the only country left standing to rebuild it. In fact Our GDP was fully half of the worlds’s GDP..

@gorillapaws Yet we are in the middle of Democratic leadership who have increased taxes and bloated the government, all in the name of “investing in the people”. Are things better or worse now than they were pre-Covid?

Looking at charts that merely look at wealth and no other factors is ridiculous. There are dozens of contributors to why the poor stay poor and the rich get wealthier.

I think there’s a different question here. Do Trump supporters really support anything at all? Or have they bought into the Trump mystique( Trump can do no wrong. He is god)?

Does Trump even know what he believes or is he parroting the sounds of the most recent right-wing crank that talked to him?

Of course you can say something similar about Democrats, but in my observation Trump’s personality called is what’s important for the right and not policies and improvement.

@Jaxk We’ve had like 40 years of Reaganomics. When is the wealth going to trickle down?

@seawulf575 “Yet we are in the middle of Democratic leadership who have increased taxes and bloated the government”

The Democrats haven’t come anywhere close to returning to a pre-Reagan budget they’re just as bad as the Republicans. You want Eisenhower levels of growth, you should have Eisenhower tax structures.

@gorillapaws The pre-Reagan budgets weren’t all that good either. Not to mention the Democrats weren’t as radical back then. And the Reagan economies were sketchy as well. That was a departure from previous economic views as well. But it did turn things around quite a bit. Economies are like people, they are usually cyclic. You will have upswings and downswings. What you don’t usually see (in fact I’ve never seen) is what happened when Biden was elected and started undoing everything Trump put into place. The economy tanked almost immediately with gas prices going from a little over $2/gal to $5/gal in just 6 months. That is what started all the economic headaches we have all been living through ever since. He killed jobs, he killed prices, he has basically killed the middle class. Now, with election time coming, they are trying to reinstitute some of the things Trump had and are seeing the improvements, but it isn’t anywhere near what they inherited. And the rich have gotten richer and the poor and middle class have gotten poorer.

@elbanditoroso Trump’s personality is important as well. But the question was about whether Trump voters support reducing taxes of the rich. Trump’s personality is bombastic and pompous, no doubt. But he doesn’t take shit off anyone. He doesn’t just kowtow and parrot what he is told. That speaks to leadership, not puppetism. I mean, look at Harris. When she is speaking without a teleprompter, she sounds completely moronic. She spews word salad like crazy. Not someone you want to follow. When she speaks with a teleprompter, she repeats the exact same speech over and over again, complete with the same hand motions. I just saw a clip where they put part of the Wisconsin rally next to the same part of the Michigan rally. She was reading off a script that someone wrote for her. And all she can speak about is “Hate Trump” which is what I predicted long ago was the only thing they could run on. And she has yet to hold a single press conference or take a single unscripted question. I take that back; yesterday a reporter asked her if she would debate Trump in the 3 debates he suggested. She merely said she has always said she would debate him on the one. She ignored the follow up question of “what about the other two?”

Trump goes off script frequently. He’s known for it. But he isn’t afraid to talk to people. He knows what he wants to do, what his policies are, and can articulate them. And isn’t afraid to articulate them. He is trying to make this election about the policies.

So let’s compare personalities: Do you want someone who can’t speak unscripted, who won’t talk to reporters, who won’t take unscreened questions, who doesn’t talk about policy? Or do you want someone that does all those things? Right now, the left seems to be the ones that think personality, no that isn’t correct, show is all that matters. All they seem to care about is “hate Trump”.

We need lower taxes on the rich and businesses, more tax loopholes, and more corporate subsidies for a few more decades, to finally experience the social and economic benefits.

Unfortunately, people elect communists like Obama and Biden every so often, who undo all the great work of the previous Republican administrations, so it’s a bit like going two steps forward and one or two steps back, which means you all have to wait longer to finally experience the wonders of right-wing economic policy.

Wulfie you always leave out the part that gas prices rose because Trumps best friend thought it would be cool to in vade a country and doing so got his oil sanctioned thus causing gas prices to rise but you always blame Biden for that, but your hate for the left blinds you of that.

They support whatever Trump says.

The issue, this time around, is not taxes so much as something FAR worse.
This time around, Trump will be looking to reduce or annihilate things like pollution controls or manufacturing waste treatment standards. Such programs have, by some, been viewed as the only real way to make most companies effected by such things actually not just ignore standards that have caused countless problems in the past or still in countries where they have industrial capabilities with little or no oversight.

Massive corporations like manufacturing companies, or other industrial plants, which produce massive (fact) amounts of pollution, often balk at the restraints the government has placed on them, to keep them from destroying the world with pollutants. They attack everything that they have to spend money on, that doesn’t add to their profits.
IF it were left up to these giant corporations (grown obese from capitalism,) they would not spend a penny managing their waste or byproducts that are created as a result of many different industrial processes.
Whilst not being quite as audacious as ANOTHER tax break for the most wealthy, this is potentially more profitable.

The destruction of such environmental protection efforts, will reduce costs for practically all businesses. (As the architects of such disgraceful governing would say.) Although. Historically. If a company can make more profit, that does not “trickle” down, to the companies who rely on them to make their products.

Essentially. Companies will no longer have to deal with the financial problems that come with being a “responsible” company.

The results, at best, will be a brief (several years) time, where giant corporations will rake in their highest profit margins in history. But. Likely this will simultaneously result in things like our country’s drinking water, air, and soil, being rendered poisonous.
The effects will be magnified on the planet, as the US was one of the leading nations actually meeting most of their obligations as far as protecting the clearly changing environment.

Like I said, Trump’s sheep, go as he goes. If he tells them, this will be (pick your 3rd grade adjective) they will believe him.

I’m not sure, if because most conservatives are religious, they believe that the environment is not controlled by us, but God. That could explain some of their complacency in regards to this issue.

If you need any evidence supporting my claim, see Trump’s views on EV’s prior to Musk’s massive financial and advertising campaign aid, versus after.
Trump is a whore. A US politician with great power, who is essentially a man for sale, as a result of his legal woes, and the fact Trump was never really a billionaire.

Years ago, SNL’s Norm MacDonald on the “news” bit was reading out the worst jobs as reported by American people.
According to the bit, the worst profession the previous year was “crack whore.” Replaced as the worst job, by “assistant crack whore.”

I guess I’m saying is, if Trump’s a whore, we know much about his supporters.

@SQUEEKY2 No, I don’t forget that because it has nothing to do with it. We were effectively energy independent when Trump was POTUS. He got us off the merry-go-round of being at the mercy of foreign oil prices. It was one of Biden’s first cut domestic production and put us right back onto that merry-go-round. Besides, your timeline is all screwed up. Biden took office in Jan 2021 and gas prices were $2.20/gal. By January 2022 gas prices were $3.61/gal…a 65% increase. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine until Feb 24th, 2022. By that time we were already well under the thumb of foreign oil producers. So yeah, at that point Putin started putting the screws to us because he could. And yes, that caused prices to go even higher. But it wouldn’t have mattered if he hadn’t been in such a hurry to undo everything Trump had done.

Another consideration on all of this is that Russia didn’t invade Ukraine while Trump was POTUS. He waited until Biden took office and showed how cognitively disabled he was before the invasion happened. The abortion of a withdrawl from Afghanistan showed the world what a horrible leader he was. No better time than when a corrupt puppet was in power to invade Ukraine. So yeah…all of this falls right on Biden’s (and Harris’) head.

I had a look at the data. US oil production was cut a bit initially (still near historical highs) but then rose to be as high as it was under Trump, and net imports are if anything even lower.

Oil prices are also quite volatile and clearly cyclical, and the ~$2/gal or so it was a few years ago was an aberrantly low point. The current price is well within historical norms and fairly low.

Not that this is a good thing. It’s frankly deranged that the US isn’t doing more to transition to renewables and get off oil. The same goes for the rest of the world.

@Kropotkin “It’s frankly deranged that the US isn’t doing more to transition to renewables and get off oil. The same goes for the rest of the world.” I agree, though it has to be done smartly. Not just demand that people swap over without any thought in it. Solar and wind are the biggies in renewables and they each have issues. Efficiency, availability of the source of energy (need sun all the time and wind all the time), the materials used in manufacturing, the consistency of output, etc are all things that need to be looked at. We are creative enough to solve a lot of these problems, but there isn’t any push to do so. Not to mention the space required to have enough generation to supply our country’s needs.

As for the gasoline prices, I went to this site and it gives me the historical trend since the early 1990’s. Average for the past 15 years looks to be somewhere around $2.80/gallon. Interestingly, there was an extended elevation during Obama’s presidency followed by a lower trend through Trump’s and then it goes up again immediately under Biden. Graphs can give us a lot to look at.

^“Smartly,” is very important. No arguments there.
But, timeliness is more important.

People in nations like the US, get to complain about prices.

Billions of us, suffer from climate change, wars, and the instability that comes from the oil industry.

The US, in particular, needs oil for it’s military. The US military, uses a LOT of oil, and other volatile chemicals, or rare earth elements, or metals with higher purity levels.

The military does take environmental impact into consideration, when they are looking at new vehicles, or weapons. A new transport ship design (for example,) ideally is cheaper to maintain and is better with fuel consumption and even pollution emissions, than the ones it will be replacing.
As history has taught us, a military is only as good as it’s supply lines, and the ability of the military’s leaders to aquire the amounts of the materials that are required to keep it constantly ready for action.

Much is made, of North Korea’s ground forces. Most machines of war they have, are obsolete and/or in poor shape. They do have a proclaimed ground army numbering over a million soldiers, and LOTS of artillery, that although old would still be effective in hitting many South Korean population centers.
They have a leader, who is always sabre rattling about invading South Korea.

According to most military analysis, the amount of oil North Korea has (obviously hamstrung by western sanctions,) is just not enough to really do anything.

They could maybe invade a small amount of Islands, or make a brief attempt at a push South, but without FAR more oil, all but their starving soldiers wouldn’t get much further.
And then, they’d have all of whatever they moved, stuck wherever it ran out of gas.

So. That’s possibly the biggest reason why oil, is so important to almost all nations. Without it, they will likely have national security concerns.

As far as the price American consumers pay, for oil, it’s quite complicated. Or. That’s how oil Barrons have it. Oil suppliers, have almost no reason for keeping oil at any type of set rate. If the price if oil gets too cheap for their desired profit margins, they simply slow oil production, and watch the price go up. Everything from Panama Canal prices, to pirates, effects the “market” price.

Trying to stay a bit out of blame everything on Trump mode, MANY previous US administrations, could have taken hard/unpopular stands on oil trade, but didn’t.
But. The US government, is plagued by having a presence of oil rich people like GWB, in power, and BOTH parties are guilty of being pawns for wealthy oil companies, that help fund their campaigns, or other types of corruption.

☆The question, is not about Biden’s actions.

It IS about (if I may re-word it a bit) about Trump’s supporters supporting the wealthy, through the actions of his administration.

Trump’s tax cuts, added $1.9 Trillion, to the national debt (over 10 years.)

☆Trump’s most significant change, was reducing the corporate tax rate from 35%, to 21%. If you think about the numbers involved there, it’s remarkable.

But. There were also changes in how money moved, was traced, and taxed, and where it ended up. In most cases, giving either more revenue, or less transparency to the wealthiest corporations.

I’m not spending time copying/pasting everything. But, it’s all there, in Brookings reports/articles, and various other government watch groups.

I HAD a great article, sighting precisely who ended up benefiting. I won’t misquote it, but it was telling.

The tax cuts VASTLY served only the wealthy. In fact, if you were in the top 0.1% of the wealthiest, you got the most money. Then, it went down, depending on how wealthy these corporations were.
It’s not remotely debatable, that most people who weren’t in the top, got almost nothing.
☆Trumpers, who happened to be making very little, and likely also had greater dependence on “democratic/socialist policies,” may not have seen $917 the first year.

Most reports I read, sighted that almost all cuts, had absolutely no chance of doing anything but potentially costing $2.3 Trillion instead of 1.9, to the American people.

Almost EVERY entity that opined on the issue, also made sure to add that that money is gone, and would really have been useful for the countless other issues the money could have addressed. Things like infrastructure, or
a Border Wall?

So.
The FACTS, are that Trump severely injured the nation, exponentially raised it’s debt to make the wealthiest wealthier, took TRILLIONS of American dollars from them, (and the articles about the billions and trillions of stock buy-backs, and other negative ramifications of the tax cuts, point to astronomical numbers of money lost by the US and it’s people.)Well. It’s less than wealthy people.

Now that we KNOW the FACTS, we can at least look at the question with more detail.
The facts are, Trumpers STILL support him, and likely his plan to continue such tax cuts, from 2025 forward.

The answer, seems pretty obvious.
Yes.
Trump voters, support reducing the taxes of wealthy companies and rich Americans.

Anything else, would just be “whataboutism.”..