Hmmm... couple points:
Not realy accurate. You will gain from the Republican economic plan if you have *any* investments, or you make any signficant salary (50kish would be a very clear demarcation point, but probably lower then that). Um... And the "hidden" issue is that the Republican plan is designed to increase the numbers of people who get jobs and make good salaries. It's very wrong to look at what you're making today and make a judgement. It's much more accurate to say that your odds of making more money, or having a better job several years down the line is vastly increased if Rep economic policies are followed.
I've probably provided my current address at least a dozen times in the last 5 years, and not one of those got to the registrar's office...
Coincidence? I think not.
If Rep policies work the economy should grow - I assume gbaji is referring to the Laffer curve? Low taxes -> high economic growth? That and the Easter bunny have equal emperical evidence. Look historically. Maximum tax rates - in fact virtually all tax rates - have fallen dramatically since the inception of income taxes in the US and there is no correlation to growth. Correlation to defecit is obvious.
Republican policies are the same as Democrat policies: to get them elected. Someone is going to pay that enormous defecit that occurs every time the Republicans cut taxes (Reagan and Bush, Jr.) and by shifting the burdon onto the less well off, you **** over everyone but the ultrarich who reap enormous benefits. Sure, I'm saving money right now. Go me! But my share of the debt is rising and guess who's going to pay later? Consider even now: we are all paying interest right now and we'll be paying a lot more. Interest on worthey expences like perhaps educating the population will return rewards later whereas giving the ultra rich enormous tax breaks has absolutly no proven value.
The argument is that they will work harder? More will aspire to become ultra rich? I'm trying to help the other side out here with any kind of logical reason. Surely people have some argument for this but I'm not sure what. In the era of raging capatilism, the highest marginal income tax rate was 90% and we did just fine. Many people still wanted to become rich then. Why, exactly, didn't we have economic collapse then? Further, it just isn't logical people will try harder to get rich when the tax burdon shifts onto them. Sure, it lessens the odds you'll make it because you have to pay more taxes in contrast to the ultra rich - perhaps the argument could be the ultra rich will become lazy with their newfound wealth and stop working so that the rest of us have a better chance?
Sure, cutting taxes is popular and it should gain Bush his second term as he brandishes the "new tax" deamon at Kerry, but socilized health care would be a far larger boon to new businesses then lower personal income taxes on the highest income individuals, and a slight decrease for the rest. It is incredably hard and expensive to pay health care for all your employees - further exhasperated by the byzantine jungle of forms and offers. Further it is hard to lure good employees away from other jobs because their doctor may not follow into a new health plan. Gaps in coverage occur between jobs presenting a huge barrier to changing jobs. There are laws (so called "COBRA" in California, or is it Federal? I think it is state) which do help, but my state law could not extend my coverage from University to job because my student health insurance was - get this - not an actual health insurance policy covering me. I joined a small startup company anyways and ran out and got and paid for personal coverage until they could enroll me, but I almost did not go because they could not cover me and my family for something like three to four months.
Single payer health care is cheaper and better in virtually any first world nation on Earth then the insane system we have in America. Look at any objective statistic, like cost per person per year or rate of surgical errors, rate of a preventable disease like RSI or adult onset diabeties, look at early treatment of cancers - basically you name it and we're paying for a front row seat and we're not in the stadium to paraphrase Ross Perot. And it would lower barriers to changing jobs and entering the market working for small startups. We have a far greater chance of this under Kerry then Bush.
The child care tax credit was a boon to business that Bush eliminated. Used to be able to write off some (all?) child daycare expenses making it easier for both parents to work. Restoring this would help business, as would socilizing daycare (by using a voucher system for private institutions or following the public school/US post office style system or other means). Many businesses run their own daycare centers. This is both expensive and inefficient. I'm not a big fan of child daycare and my wife and I don't plan to use it but I still think it would increase the efficiency of our economy by making it easier for all people to work who want to. And I'm willing to help pay for it.
Simplifying the tax code would save people tons of money and time otherwise wasted and reduce the IRS workforce saving money there.
Any pro-business party should have at least some plan for these areas of federal law. There are proven, working solutions to these problems in other countries - why don't we follow them?
In the mid-Clinton years we had two years of Democrat control of both elected branches of federal government in the US and now we are nearing the end of two years with total Republican control. Neither group adequately address any of these problems.
If you have ever been registered in the state of California, you can walk up and do a provisional ballet at any polling location. No, they probably won't count your ballet unless the race is really close but them's the breaks. IIRC you do have to provide something like: (a) present address and former, registered address, and (b) some documentation that you live at your current address. This is California, so your state may vary.