Americans Favor "Buffett Rule" by 60% to 37%

[imbalance]

Nice chart. However, it doesn't verify InAlienable's statement nor does it disprove my statement. Wages were flat before the undocumented worker population exploded.

I can't speak for someone else's claims but I think he's talking about under-the-table and blackmarket earnings which would be impossible to quantify.

But as far as wages being flat; if we're talking real wages as in your graph, they are supposed to stay flat or level assuming stable labor supply/demand. Real wages represent the adjusted for inflation purchasing power of nominal wage values so increases/decreases in real wages relative to consistent units of labor output would suggest a contraction/expansion of the money supply with deflation/inflation of the currency. In other words, fluctuations of real wages all else being equal are a troublesome sign of monetary volatility.

Receiving equivalent real value compensation for equivalent labor output over time is perfectly reasonable and efficient.

 

[inALIENable]

I wasn't speaking about wages. Just saying, there are many earning an income in america and they do not report or file or pay ANY income tax what-so-ever. MANY. They should, but they don't, because they simply refuse. MANY.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Ah that's okay, go ahead and tax the shit out of capital gains, we can just shift our savings/investments from shares in US corporations to piles of gold and other tangible conversions. Probably a good idea anyhow, all things considered.

aren't commodities taxed as capital gains?

 

[inALIENable]

aren't commodities taxed as capital gains?

Who's going to know? Hum?

 

[SniperFire]

WORD

Why address the spending problems when the 'rich' can be demogogued to inflame the freeloading voter base?

 

[Skull Pilot]

According to a new Gallup poll released Friday, a majority of Americans support the proposed Buffett Rule, which would require individuals earning $1 million or more per year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Six in 10 Americans favor Congress' passing the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would mandate a minimum 30% tax rate for Americans with a household income of $1 million or more per year. Majorities of both Democrats and independents favor the policy, while a majority of Republicans oppose it.

Americans Favor

Here's another area where the GOP is out of touch with the average American.

Gee imagine that people are in favor of having someone else's taxes raised.

And in breaking news : The pyramids have been completed.

 

[The T]

According to a new Gallup poll released Friday, a majority of Americans support the proposed Buffett Rule, which would require individuals earning $1 million or more per year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Six in 10 Americans favor Congress' passing the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would mandate a minimum 30% tax rate for Americans with a household income of $1 million or more per year. Majorities of both Democrats and independents favor the policy, while a majority of Republicans oppose it.

Americans Favor

Here's another area where the GOP is out of touch with the average American.

So a majority want someone else to pay. Good job liberals

Passing on piss poor morals

Have to have them to begin with.

 

[candycorn]

According to a new Gallup poll released Friday, a majority of Americans support the proposed Buffett Rule, which would require individuals earning $1 million or more per year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Six in 10 Americans favor Congress' passing the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would mandate a minimum 30% tax rate for Americans with a household income of $1 million or more per year. Majorities of both Democrats and independents favor the policy, while a majority of Republicans oppose it.

Americans Favor

Here's another area where the GOP is out of touch with the average American.

Obviously they do since most of the ones polled would not see their taxes raised.

I think the more interesting poll would be one of those affected. I wouldn't be shocked if you saw results close to the ones you've reported above. Most wealthy persons who earned their standing understand that good schools, good roads, good healthcare benefits them far more than it benefits the average citizen. The Mitt Romney's of the world are likely so aloof that they don't understand that, I suppose.

Politically, it does show that the GOP is, again, at odds with the public. Thats a dangerous situation for them in an election year.

 

[Seawytch]

CBO says it raises taxes a total of three days worth of Federal spending over the 11 year period they were told to review.

And cutting funding for heating old for old people does what to Federal spending over an 11 year period? How about cutting funding to planned parenthood? What does THAT do to spending over that 11 year period?

Hmmmm...what would cutting a few nukes do...

 

[Seawytch]

According to a new Gallup poll released Friday, a majority of Americans support the proposed Buffett Rule, which would require individuals earning $1 million or more per year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Six in 10 Americans favor Congress' passing the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would mandate a minimum 30% tax rate for Americans with a household income of $1 million or more per year. Majorities of both Democrats and independents favor the policy, while a majority of Republicans oppose it.

Americans Favor

Here's another area where the GOP is out of touch with the average American.

Obviously they do since most of the ones polled would not see their taxes raised.

I think the more interesting poll would be one of those affected. I wouldn't be shocked if you saw results close to the ones you've reported above. Most wealthy persons who earned their standing understand that good schools, good roads, good healthcare benefits them far more than it benefits the average citizen. The Mitt Romney's of the world are likely so aloof that they don't understand that, I suppose.

Politically, it does show that the GOP is, again, at odds with the public. Thats a dangerous situation for them in an election year.

The rich say tax the rich too...

Poll: Well-off say tax the rich

 

[candycorn]

Americans Favor

Here's another area where the GOP is out of touch with the average American.

Obviously they do since most of the ones polled would not see their taxes raised.

I think the more interesting poll would be one of those affected. I wouldn't be shocked if you saw results close to the ones you've reported above. Most wealthy persons who earned their standing understand that good schools, good roads, good healthcare benefits them far more than it benefits the average citizen. The Mitt Romney's of the world are likely so aloof that they don't understand that, I suppose.

Politically, it does show that the GOP is, again, at odds with the public. Thats a dangerous situation for them in an election year.

The rich say tax the rich too...

Poll: Well-off say tax the rich

There can always be a poll that reports an outlier--I'm not saying that your link is to one of them. What I am saying is that if you were to poll Americans soon after 9/11, you would probably find that terrorism was a big concern. Enron failed about 2 months after 9/11. If you had taken the poll two months later, you'd find that protection of worker's rights was likely a big concern since Enron management prevented workers from moving their money out of the 401k's that were heavy in Enron stock while the CEO's and CFO's bailed out--literally.

Polls reflect the weather of the day; not the climate.

That being said, the learned rich understand that a robust middle class is their best ally to their continued success. You'll note that those who report such stringent opposition to sensible tax increases/letting tax breaks expire are often not rich, not learned, and have a bizarre view of history.

I gave the toaster example the other day. If you own the toaster factory; you want to sell to a market where there are 200 people that can afford your toaster instead of the market where 40 people can afford you toaster. It just makes sense. Which is why there are boats from China docking here now. I doubt the docks of Somolia are as busy.
Theres a reason Japan sells their cars here.

True, the money being spent isn't being spent as effectively as it should be. There needs to be overhauls in the way governments work. But the underlying aspect of the formula is sound.

 

[kiwiman127]

Nice chart. However, it doesn't verify InAlienable's statement nor does it disprove my statement. Wages were flat before the undocumented worker population exploded.

I can't speak for someone else's claims but I think he's talking about under-the-table and blackmarket earnings which would be impossible to quantify.

But as far as wages being flat; if we're talking real wages as in your graph, they are supposed to stay flat or level assuming stable labor supply/demand. Real wages represent the adjusted for inflation purchasing power of nominal wage values so increases/decreases in real wages relative to consistent units of labor output would suggest a contraction/expansion of the money supply with deflation/inflation of the currency. In other words, fluctuations of real wages all else being equal are a troublesome sign of monetary volatility.

Receiving equivalent real value compensation for equivalent labor output over time is perfectly reasonable and efficient.

Wages should at least stay even with inflation, the fact that this didn't happen, per the drop in Real Income from the early 80's. Today, a wage earner is earning less in Real Dollars than they were in 1980, yet the uber wealth realized growth in their Real Income through that same period. Who controls wages?

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Three years and new fault lines threaten - FT.com

In his book, Prof Rajan points to domestic political stresses within the US. Related stresses are emerging in western Europe. I think of it as the end of “the deal”. What was that deal? It was the post-second-world-war settlement: in the US, the deal centred on full employment and high individual consumption. In Europe, it centred on state-provided welfare.
In the US, soaring inequality and stagnant real incomes have long threatened this deal. Thus, Prof Rajan notes that “of every dollar of real income growth that was generated between 1976 and 2007, 58 cents went to the top 1 per cent of households”. This is surely stunning.
“The political response to rising inequality ... was to expand lending to households, especially low-income ones.” This led to the financial breakdown. As Prof Rajan notes: “[the financial sector’s] failings in the recent crisis include distorted incentives, hubris, envy, misplaced faith and herd behaviour. But the government helped make those risks look more attractive than they should have been and kept the market from exercising discipline.”
Three years and new fault lines threaten - FT.com

In other words your theory favors the upper income tiers, where as the "working class" spins it's wheels and goes nowhere. And some people wonder why 60% support the Buffett Rule? I would tend to guess that the fiqure of 60% would be made up of mostly the wage earner, who has been losing out for over three decades. This is also the group that a nearly all of the proposed spending cuts per Paul Ryan's plan would effect. In other words, a continuation of the one-way-street the working class demographic has been forced to follow for over 30 years.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama said that the Buffet Rule was only a gimmick. I don't think that 67% of American people are so stupid as to believe the Buffet Rule after they were told it was meaningless to begin with.

 

[The T]

obama said that the Buffet Rule was only a gimmick. I don't think that 67% of American people are so stupid as to believe the Buffet Rule after they were told it was meaningless to begin with.

When Buffet could PAY all it would garner...and he's still have billions to burn.

 

[Avatar4321]

id just like buffet to pay the taxes he already owes.

 

[Meister]

Well, if you tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth it wouldn't be so durn confusing. The Buffett rule is not quite what it's been touted to be!! There is a difference in earned income and capital gains, the left just doesn't quite let everyone know that.

Honesty is a virtue.

Yep unearned income should be taxed at a higher rate.

Are you talking about the earned income credit? oh wait......

 

[The T]

‘The Beginning of Serfdom’: Beck Exposes the Surprising Hole in the Buffett Rule

Regardless of his claim that the Buffett Rule does not engage in class warfare, Obama’s words might ring otherwise. During his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama asked, “when it comes to paying down the deficit and investing in our future, should we ask middle class Americans to pay even more at a time when their budgets are already stretched to the breaking point?”

“Or should we ask some of the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share?”

The only problem?
Warren Buffett will likely not be paying his “fair share” anyway. At least not in income tax.

While progressives would quickly suggest the reason is because “the wealthy are benefiting from an unfair tax system that rewards only the top ‘1%’” — in actuality, Buffett, along with George Soros and likely even Bill Gates, are not actually earning income. Thus, there is nothing to pay income tax on. Rather, long-time entrepreneurs like Buffett and Soros are likely living off their investments. This is different than earned income — such as a salary — and is not subject to income tax.

 

[JimH52]

The GOP will not be happy until Millionaires and Billionaires pay not taxes at all. Then the wealth is supposed to magically trickle down to the poor and middle class...

 

[Meister]

The GOP will not be happy until Millionaires and Billionaires pay not taxes at all. Then the wealth is supposed to magically trickle down to the poor and middle class...

I'll let you in on a little secret, Jim, if you taxed the wealthy 90%, it still wouldn't trickle down to the poor and middle class....make no mistake about that.

 

[Stephanie]

My gawd, they are still pushing this idiot idea..

I guess the class warfare is working