Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Poll: 61% of Americans support tax increase on wealthy.
#1
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/33458

A new study indicates that most Americans would rather impose greater taxes on the wealthy than sacrifice Federal services such as Medicaire and Social Security. This is logical given people's dependency on such programs. Are Americans truly as conservative as pundits would suggest?
Reply
#2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_taxes_poll
It's a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll. Who trusts them?

Were they given a definition of "rich"?
Most people think millionaires when they hear "rich", the government thinks $200,000 is rich.
If they were they asked if they would like to raise taxes on their employer (rich people) the result may have been different.
Different eyes see different things. Different hearts beat on different strings.
But there are times for you and me when all such things agree.
-Geddy Lee, Rush.
Reply
#3
Quote:NEW YORK (Reuters) – Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday.

Notice that there is conveniently no link to the poll, or a list of the questions asked. What does this tell you "G"?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#4
Taxes increases are NEVER on the rich. They're on people who desire to become rich.

Rich people have their wealth in unrealized capital gains. Those aren't taxed. People who wish to become rich have their wealth in income. That's taxed out the wazzoo.

So until someone talks about taxing unrealized capital gains... or even basing our progressive income tax structure on net worth instead of income (that is, someone WORTH a billion dollars making $250K would pay more tax than someone worth 250K dollars making 250K) then it's all just rhetorical nonsense.
Reply
#5
Here's Michael Barone's opposite take on this "Income Inequality" and "Taxing the Rich" issue: Personal Well-Being Overshadows Income Inequality.

So, which makes more sense Gommi?

Quote:Personal Well-Being Overshadows Income Inequality
By Michael Barone

Consider one conundrum in American politics. Income inequality has been increasing, according to standard statistics. Yet most Americans do not seem very perturbed by it.

Barack Obama may have been elected president after telling Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. But large majorities in polls approved when Obama and congressional Democrats abandoned oft-repeated campaign promises to raise taxes on high earners in the lame duck session.

Why don't voters care more?

One reason is that economic statistics can miss important things that affect people's lives. Wages may not have risen much since 1973, but that's partly because the tax code encourages increased compensation in the form of benefits, including health insurance. And it's partly because the Consumer Price Index overstated the effect of inflation in the 1970s, making 1973 wages look higher in "real dollars."

Another is that inflation indexes can't fully account for product improvement and technological progress. I bought my first electronic calculator in 1970 for $110. Today you can buy the same gadget for $1.99 at your local drug store. The consumer electronics widely available today at declining prices simply didn't exist in the 1980s.

In addition, as George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen writes in The American Interest, "The inequality of personal well-being is sharply down over the past hundred years and perhaps over the past 20 years, as well." Bill Gates may have a bigger house than you do. But you have about the same access to good food, medical care and even to the Internet as he does.

Or consider something as prosaic as food. The supermarkets of the 1960s and 1970s didn't come close to matching the amazing selection of produce, meats and exotic foods as you find in supermarkets today -- and not just in high-income neighborhoods, but in modest-income places all over the country.

Or clothing. Firms like Walmart, Target and Kohl's have good quality clothes at astonishingly low prices -- you can outfit a kid in school clothes for $100 or so a year. Presidential candidate John Edwards claimed to have seen a little girl shivering in the winter because her parents could not buy a coat; you can get one for $5 at the Salvation Army.

It's a widespread assumption in some affluent circles that ordinary Americans are seething with envy because they can't afford to shop regularly at Neiman Marcus or Saks Fifth Avenue. My sense is that most Americans just don't care. They're reasonably happy with what they've got, and would like a little more.

So I am inclined to agree with Cowen when he writes, "The broader change in income distribution, the one occurring beneath the very top earners, can be deconstructed in a manner that makes nearly all of it look harmless."

Cowen is worried that high earners in financial industries benefit hugely when they bet correctly but are sheltered from losses by government bailouts when they bet wrong. It's a problem that the financial regulation bill passed by the outgoing Congress addressed but, in his opinion and those of many others I respect, did not solve.

But there's little evidence that most Americans begrudge the exceedingly high earnings of the likes of Steve Jobs, Steven Spielberg or J.K. Rowling. We believe they have earned their success and don't see how taking money away from them will make the rest of us better off.

We already take quite a bit. Current tax rates mean that the top 1 percent of earners account for 40 percent of federal income tax revenue -- a higher percentage than in many Western European countries. Higher tax rates would probably produce more tax avoidance -- rich people can adjust their affairs -- and lower revenues than forecast by static economic models.

Of course, not everyone is well off in a nation where unemployment has been 9.4 percent or higher for the last 19 months. And I suspect that most Americans would be thrilled to get a 13th month of pay. But they're not seething with envy at those who are better off.

So who does? One example is the cartoonist and author Garry Trudeau, a college classmate of George W. Bush, who has been spewing contempt for the Bushes for 40-some years. The strongest class envy in America, it turns out, may be the resentment of those who were one club above you at Yale.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#6
Welfare rolls are a tax on the middle class.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#7
No, WB, you are missing the point. Those at the top have an obligation to provide for those at the bottom. And those floating near the top, but still kind of hovering near the middle have an obligation to provide for those at the bottom. And the ones in the middle have an obligation. Also, those teetering between mid- and lower- levels have that same obligation. Pretty much anyone not firmly resting on the bottom have that obligation.
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#8
Just stirring up sh*t.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#9
I don't think most yanks are that confused. Most of us realize it isn't the average Joe that builds factories,etc and w/o that investment,the average Joe starves.

Plus,most Americans about hate our government,so why would we want anyone to pay more taxes to it? I wish it would dry up and go away.
Reply
#10
Palladin Wrote:I wish it would dry up and go away.

That's what she said?
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#11
taxing rich people for dummies. Wink1
Sanders 2020

Reply
#12
mv Wrote:taxing rich people for dummies. Wink1

:lol: The number of these special videos are increasing quickly. Even a Gommi or Buzz can understand them.

Here is the one on the Austrain School.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#13
ghoullio Wrote:No, WB, you are missing the point. Those at the top have an obligation to provide for those at the bottom. And those floating near the top, but still kind of hovering near the middle have an obligation to provide for those at the bottom. And the ones in the middle have an obligation. Also, those teetering between mid- and lower- levels have that same obligation. Pretty much anyone not firmly resting on the bottom have that obligation.
Why :?: :?: Where you get this "obligation" thing from :?:
Reply
#14
IT's what's right for society. Those who cannot help themselves deserve the same opportunities as those who can help themselves.

Also, those who won't help themselves deserve a chance. It's all about equality.
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#15
John L Wrote:Here's Michael Barone's opposite take on this "Income Inequality" and "Taxing the Rich" issue: Personal Well-Being Overshadows Income Inequality.

So, which makes more sense Gommi?
if so, why extend the tax cuts for the rich? aren't they happy with personal well-being like everybody else? your article is quite outrageous.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#16
mmh. when i sent the post above, i got this message,

Failed sending email :: PHP ::

DEBUG MODE

Line : 234
File : emailer.php


but the post is there anyway.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#17
I had the same thing.

It's Obama's new censure. All posts must be approved for safety by an Obamanoid official before they can be published to the interweb.
[Image: 760.png]
Reply
#18
Q: You mean Tax Cuts for those who wish to become Rich.

As I pointed out earlier, the progressive tax bracket is based on Income, not actual Net Worth. And Net Worth is easy to protect from taxes.
Reply
#19
These lefty states are going bankrupt,how fast will their citizens flee into normal states?

HERE
Reply
#20
Pixiest Wrote:Q: You mean Tax Cuts for those who wish to become Rich.

As I pointed out earlier, the progressive tax bracket is based on Income, not actual Net Worth. And Net Worth is easy to protect from taxes.
net worth is the investment, the money that's working, isn't it? do you want to tax it, or to trickle down to stimulate the economy and to create jobs? don't you have the possibility to invest a part of your income, and this part reduces the amount which is actually taxed as income in a year? anyway, folks with substantial net worth also have large incomes, or what is the point of it?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Poll: Americans Split on What to Cut from Government John L 3 1,189 01-15-2011, 10:42 PM
Last Post: Gunnen4u
  Poll: Support for Afghan war at all-time low quadrat 1 587 09-20-2009, 03:59 PM
Last Post: Fredledingue
  Retiree With $60K of Income Too Wealthy for Benefits Canuknucklehead 11 1,263 05-18-2009, 07:12 PM
Last Post: Gunnen4u

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)