Tax reduction vs. Government handouts

Politicians always have a philosophy that they agree with on taxes. Should the government let you keep the Money and stimulate the economy or should they take your money and hand it out to the needy?

Doesn't a middle ground exist?

Tax reductions work here.

Do you guys like tax reductions because they cost you less or because they are better for the general populace?

Worked for Canada.

If you mindlessly cut taxes, there goes revenue.
If you mindlessly hand cash out, there goes treasury.
So, it is imperative to find a middle ground.

I voted tax reduction not because it would improve my personal situation but because I think government handouts encourage poverty more than solve it.

Tax reductions. States should be lean, people generally know what they want and high taxes just get in the way.

Should be a middle ground, but I went with handouts because, unless economic times are good, people are going to hoard their untaxed money anyway. I don't believe simply "handing" that money to the public is a solution either, but if you can create a good system where something similar happens it would work.

Flat Tax is in no way fair.

I say go with flat taxes.

By giving people money in a less authoritarian ways such as tax reduction, the economy can actually be stimulated. However, what really causes economic stimulation is lowering taxes on the rich.

Think of it this way:

Lower Taxes on Rich ------> Rich have more Money

Rich have more Money ------> Rich expand their corporations

Rich expand their corporations -------> Corporations hire workers

Corporations hire workers --------> Less unemployment + more consumers to buy products from the economy

Handouts can work, but not nearly as well as universal tax reduction.

I voted gov't handouts but the easiest system is to tax the rich fairly high and distribute the money to the lower classes and give some of it to buisnesses with strings attached as to make sure they can't spend it on bonuses for themselves eg Goldman Sacs.

Of course, the Rich can just move?

Good point. It's a victim-less crime to be successful. Businesses have to do what they need to survive and thrive. If they need to spend money on certain employees that are of value to keep them then they will receive the consequences for that and either succeed, or suffer a loss and have to learn from their mistake by means of incentive.
Governments oftentimes lack efficiency because they lack pressure. Unlike the business they must provide a needed good or service for a certain cost, the state has the capability to rip out as much money as it wants by means of force and can only be indirectly accountable to the subjects (just look how far the US is in debt).

Yes, I believe that was the ideal idea of democracy. You can keep government pressured by threatening to vote them out. Unfortunatly, people just don't really care anymore. They're to busy going to NightClubs or playing Black Ops to see the problems we have.

Something we can all agree on

People have always been distracted from the politics that they could be participating in and always will be. It's a flaw in the democratic ideal or practice.