People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit by a 2-to-1 Margin

[xsited1]

Don't know where you got your facts about people supporting higher taxes. No "people" around where I live are in favor of higher taxes. They are in favor of less government spending though...

I got the facts from a website which posted many polls conducted over the past half year. It links all the polls. You can click on the links in all of them.

Yes, from the highly respect capitalgainsandgames.com, of course every knows of that prestigious organization.

How about Gallup? What does that more respected polling organization say?

Attention to Debt Ceiling Debate Doesn't Affect Policy Views

"Echoing resistance to raising the nation's debt ceiling among the public at large, 53% of Americans who say they are following the issue very closely in the news want their member of Congress to vote against raising the debt limit, while 37% urge a vote in favor."

Federal Budget Deficit

"From what you know or have read about the discussion of raising the debt ceiling, would you want your member of Congress to -- [ROTATED: vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling, vote against raising the debt ceiling] -- or don't you know enough to say?"


Vote for 19%
Vote against 47%

2011 May 5-8
*
* Less than 0.5%

Which do you think is more to blame for the federal budget deficit -- [ROTATED: spending too much money on federal programs that are either not needed or wasteful, (or) not raising enough money in taxes to pay for needed federal programs]?

Spending too much 73%
on programs

Not raising enough 22%
money in taxes

2011 Apr 20-23


Toro, you are either purposing lying, or just cherry picking polls from organizations no has ever heard because you are wrong--WRONG--when you say a majority of Americans want higher taxes.

The plurality of Americans are against this administration and you are on the losing end of this debate.

Correct. Toro likes Bruce Bartlett because their beliefs are similar. Unfortunately, Bruce Bartlett is wrong.

 

[auditor0007]

When did you start posting blatantly partisan links?

Those polls show that people are willing to accept higher taxes as a part of reducing the deficit. They also show that people want that deficit reduction to be mostly about cutting spending, and that only 20% or so actually support using only taxes to reduce the deficit. Why does your site fail to mention any of that?

You must have missed Toro's post where he stated:

But if you read through those polls, they generally say that people want more spending cuts than tax increases to address the deficit. They just don't think that it should come entirely from spending cuts.

Yet he chose to title the thread in a way that indicated that people prefer tax hikes. I know you are a partisan hack, but I expect better of Toro.

Have voted Republican my entire life up until last year. I've had enough of the bad math from the far right. I still believe in fiscal responsibility, but to me that doesn't include reducing revenues to unsustainable levels and claiming that it creates more revenue when it has not. So no, not really a partisan hack at all. And I am one who supports the idea of raising the retirement age for SS and Medicare. Nah, not a partisan hack. There are just about as many on the left who hate me as on the right.

 

[auditor0007]

Taxing the rich at 100% would still leave us in a HUGE heap of debt...

It's a tired meme....

I have no problem with simplifying the tax code and closing the loopholes...

Nobody wants to tax the rich at 100%. But when they are only paying 17% while those in the middle class are paying upwards of 25%, then something is drastically wrong.

17%..Prove it.....The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the total federal burden.
So if the rich are paying on average of 17%.....See where we're going here?
What should happen but never will is a simplification of the tax code and ONE rate for everyone and of course eliminate ALL deductions.
I once heard a US Tax Court attorney state that the US Tax Code is deliberately complicated. His reason was to make it harder to cheat.
HUH?!!!!

Are you serious? You are going to throw out a claim that the top 10% pays 70% of the federal tax burden and you tell me to prove my statement? LMFAO!!!

I think what you meant to say, and what is so misleading, is that the top 10% pays 70% of all federal income taxes, which is very different from saying they pay 70% of the federal tax burden. You see, federal income taxes only account for approximately 40% of all federal taxes. Another 40% comes from SS and Medicare taxes which are deducted through everyone's paycheck or paid quarterly for most of the self-employed. Because SS tax payments cap out at $106,800, the top 10% pay a very small share of these taxes. The vast majority of those taxes are paid by the bottom 90%, and everyone who works pays these taxes. After that, about 9% of federal taxes come from corporate taxes. Of course, those taxes are all passed on as a cost of doing business to the consumer, which for the most part, falls to the bottom 90% of taxpayers. Last of all, you have excise taxes and slew full of miscellaneous taxes that are also paid in most part by the bottom 90% of taxpayers.

In the end, the top 10% is paying much closer to 30% of all federal taxes, possibly 35%. But here is the kicker; they are earning over 45% of the income and they control 70% of the wealth. Damn, what a deal they are getting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You must have missed Toro's post where he stated:

Yet he chose to title the thread in a way that indicated that people prefer tax hikes. I know you are a partisan hack, but I expect better of Toro.

Have voted Republican my entire life up until last year. I've had enough of the bad math from the far right. I still believe in fiscal responsibility, but to me that doesn't include reducing revenues to unsustainable levels and claiming that it creates more revenue when it has not. So no, not really a partisan hack at all. And I am one who supports the idea of raising the retirement age for SS and Medicare. Nah, not a partisan hack. There are just about as many on the left who hate me as on the right.

You think the far right is bad at math? What about Obama's call for ending corporate jet taxes. how much will that raise again?

 

[skookerasbil]

For the sake of argument, I'm going to presume that your stats are correct despite doubting them. Even if that many people supported raising taxes to fix the deficit, raising taxes wouldn't fix the deficit. It would merely slow the economy and we would see even less revenue than we have before

Cutting spending will also slow the economy. But that's all beside the point.

This shows that the Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue with the American people because their Tea Party base is fanatical and religious about the tax issue. So the GOP is in a box.

But if you read through those polls, they generally say that people want more spending cuts than tax increases to address the deficit. They just don't think that it should come entirely from spending cuts.

s0n.......you can croon all day about wanting higher taxes and some bs polls supporting it, but unless you have the political IQ of a small soap dish, you immediately realize that there is ZERO chance of higher taxes in this debt reduction discussion. ZERO

 

[Article 15]

Federal Budget Deficit

From Gallup again:

As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit -- [ROTATED: only with spending cuts, mostly with spending cuts, equally with spending cuts and tax increases, mostly with tax increases, (or) only with tax increases]?

Only with spending cuts 20%
Mostly with spending cuts 28%
Equally with spending cuts/tax increases 37%
Mostly with tax increases 9%
Only with tax increases 2%

In other words, only 20% are against tax increases while the overwhelming majority are for tax increases.

That is one way of reading it. Another is that 94% of the public wants spending cuts. Which, by the way, is actually a higher percentage than the total of the people who want increased taxes, which only adds up to 78%.

It adds up to 76% but yeah, you are right that is another thing you can extrapolate from it.

The overall theme that I am getting from that poll is that a large majority wants both spending cuts and tax increases, and that majority is weighted towards a plan that has more spending cuts than tax increases.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You must have missed Toro's post where he stated:

Yet he chose to title the thread in a way that indicated that people prefer tax hikes. I know you are a partisan hack, but I expect better of Toro.

Have voted Republican my entire life up until last year. I've had enough of the bad math from the far right. I still believe in fiscal responsibility, but to me that doesn't include reducing revenues to unsustainable levels and claiming that it creates more revenue when it has not. So no, not really a partisan hack at all. And I am one who supports the idea of raising the retirement age for SS and Medicare. Nah, not a partisan hack. There are just about as many on the left who hate me as on the right.

Disagree. Government has grown too large.
For example...Is it really necessary for the federal government to be funding public education? Should the federal government be in the housing business? Should the federal government have so much money tied up in real estate( federal lands)?
Should the federal government be involved in insuring the pensions of those in the private sector? Should the federal government be in the business of providing funds for businesses that have performed poorly?
Should the federal government be the nation's largest employer?
Every time I hear the President or a member of Congress use the word "plan" or "program" I cringe. My reaction is "Great, there goes another gazillion dollars out the window and into the black hole of government spending".

 

[geauxtohell]

To really address the debt will require a nationwide effort with a virtual mobilization and sacrifice of the entire populace that would be akin to the mobilization of the public during World War II.

It would be the best thing for this country economically. However, we are so fractured, I doubt it would work.

It doesn't help that the two major parties are more concerned with the White House then the problem. Maybe if Obama wins, he can do it as a second termer.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Flopper....Can you post any facts where a government program functions within budget and stays within time frames?
Because what you wrote( below) is so unbelievable, it borders on amusing.
The press reports waste in government because it makes news. They never report efficiency in government because no one is interested. So when all you see in the media is Medicare abuse, Social Security fraud, $25,000 hammers, and government workers sleeping on the job, you naturally assume all government is wasteful and inefficient. But remember, there are always two sides to a story and you hearing only one side. You don't hear about Medicare claim processing overhead is 2%, or federal agencies that routinely come in under budget, or programs that reduce cost and inefficiency in government or Social Security benefit processing that has never been late getting out checks. These items don't make the news because tax payers want to believe their taxes are being wasted and thus should be reduced. I worked as a consultant to several government agencies and I have found the employees worked just as hard and were just as efficient as those in the private sector. I have to question the value of some of the programs but not the workers.
BTW, if you had a clue how government funding of budgets works, you'd never use the phrase "come in under budget"....
Government NEVER uses less than the spending allotment. Why? Because the succeeding year's budget is based on the previous year's expenditures.
For example, if the Federal Department of Redundancy Dept( FDRD) has a budget of $1. This dept has hired a few bright and ambitious noobs. They collaborate to find a brilliant way to spend only 90 cents of the budget and get the same amount of work done. The boss of the FDRD, calls the noobs into his luxuriously appointed office and proceeds to rip the noobs a new asshole and tells them their job is to NOT be concerned with money and the next time they do this, they will be welcome to find work in the private sector.
Now why is is this? Simple. If the FDRD spent only 90 cents of their $1 budget, the following year's budget will be.......90 cents. GET IT?!!!!
If you ever hear a politician or bureaucrat state " we saved money", he or she IS LYING!!!!!!
Government NEVER saves money. They just find something else on which to spend it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Since we have a penchant for using sin taxes, why not tax people who use government services on a use basis.

Yeah. But watch the "compassion(ists)" start screaming.
As far as I am concerned all government should be funded by user fees.
Everything in the private sector is funded this way.
As a matter of fact, some public sector items are funded by user fees. Examples are entry fees to parks. Toll roads are another.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nobody wants to tax the rich at 100%. But when they are only paying 17% while those in the middle class are paying upwards of 25%, then something is drastically wrong.

17%..Prove it.....The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the total federal burden.
So if the rich are paying on average of 17%.....See where we're going here?
What should happen but never will is a simplification of the tax code and ONE rate for everyone and of course eliminate ALL deductions.
I once heard a US Tax Court attorney state that the US Tax Code is deliberately complicated. His reason was to make it harder to cheat.
HUH?!!!!

Are you serious? You are going to throw out a claim that the top 10% pays 70% of the federal tax burden and you tell me to prove my statement? LMFAO!!!

I think what you meant to say, and what is so misleading, is that the top 10% pays 70% of all federal income taxes, which is very different from saying they pay 70% of the federal tax burden. You see, federal income taxes only account for approximately 40% of all federal taxes. Another 40% comes from SS and Medicare taxes which are deducted through everyone's paycheck or paid quarterly for most of the self-employed. Because SS tax payments cap out at $106,800, the top 10% pay a very small share of these taxes. The vast majority of those taxes are paid by the bottom 90%, and everyone who works pays these taxes. After that, about 9% of federal taxes come from corporate taxes. Of course, those taxes are all passed on as a cost of doing business to the consumer, which for the most part, falls to the bottom 90% of taxpayers. Last of all, you have excise taxes and slew full of miscellaneous taxes that are also paid in most part by the bottom 90% of taxpayers.

In the end, the top 10% is paying much closer to 30% of all federal taxes, possibly 35%. But here is the kicker; they are earning over 45% of the income and they control 70% of the wealth. Damn, what a deal they are getting.

Ahh when in need of a response, start by splitting hairs.
I clearly stated TAX BURDEN. SS and Medicare deductions are?.........TAXES.
The top ten percent also are responsible for the majority of all economic activity. This come in the form of investment in financial securities and business. It also comes in the form of consumer spending.
"In the end, the top 10% is paying much closer to 30% of all federal taxes, possibly 35%."
Really...I'll ask you to show your data, but you'll snap back with " I don't have to" or some other nonsense. Oh well.
The rest of your statement presupposes the absence of consumer spending by the upper income levels.
There is no getting around the axiom of "the more one earns, the more they spend and invest".
Spending and investment generates revenue for government coffers. It's a very simple concept

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting that auditor doesn't let facts get in his way. I wonder how ignoring them goes over at work?

 

[thereisnospoon]

To really address the debt will require a nationwide effort with a virtual mobilization and sacrifice of the entire populace that would be akin to the mobilization of the public during World War II.

It would be the best thing for this country economically. However, we are so fractured, I doubt it would work.

It doesn't help that the two major parties are more concerned with the White House then the problem. Maybe if Obama wins, he can do it as a second termer.

So the solution is to build equipment and machines even though there is no or little market for them?
What is it with you libs and "sacrifice"?
Is misery your ultimate achievement?

 

[saveliberty]

Musing about a second term. Has the medical marijuana office opened next to your house?

 

[geauxtohell]

To really address the debt will require a nationwide effort with a virtual mobilization and sacrifice of the entire populace that would be akin to the mobilization of the public during World War II.

It would be the best thing for this country economically. However, we are so fractured, I doubt it would work.

It doesn't help that the two major parties are more concerned with the White House then the problem. Maybe if Obama wins, he can do it as a second termer.

So the solution is to build equipment and machines even though there is no or little market for them?
What is it with you libs and "sacrifice"?
Is misery your ultimate achievement?

Sacrifice is what makes this country work. The goofy Randian philosophy of unfettered selfishness of ultimately flawed. Someone has to be willing to lay their comfort and safety on the line and to sacrifice their time and perhaps their lives to ensure a society where the capitalist can amass wealth. Capitalism can't survive without stable infrastructure.

A stable nation is the anti-thesis of misery. True misery is power in the hands of the guilded few who have no interest in anyone else. It is socieities like that where failure is assured as the have nots become increasingly dis-enchanted and eventually violent. Why did the Czar fall? Why has every Monarchy in Europe fallen? What gave birth to the philosophy of communism?

The stupidity of objectivism is that it assumes that there will always be dumb rubes who will muddle around in the lower classes to do these jobs while the pathologically selfish can amass vast wealth.

"Sacrifice" used to be viewed as a positive thing in this country. Now it is viewed as a "sucker's bet". Ironically, while slapping the boys and girls in uniform on the back.

The sacrifice I am talking about, raising taxes in the common goal of financial freedom, is trivial when stacked up next to asking a young man or woman to go to Afghanistan or Iraq for a year to sweat it out.

Yet, you would think people were being asked to give up their first born son.

If our country collapses, it will ultimately be because we are too fucking greedy to recognize that you can't have it all.

Then again, after being told we could fight wars in two nations without any economic sacrifice (and people believing that), I have lost a degree of faith in our pragmatism.

Guess what? We have a hefty bill to pay now for our military adventurism. It didn't go away because Bush told you he wouldn't raise your taxes.

Bush just left it up to someone else to pay for his wars.

 

[geauxtohell]

Musing about a second term. Has the medical marijuana office opened next to your house?

I don't support Medical MJ. Either legalize it or not. Don't turn physicians into pot dealers.

It's bad enough with the opiate dealers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In other words, only 20% are against tax increases while the overwhelming majority are for tax increases.

That is one way of reading it. Another is that 94% of the public wants spending cuts. Which, by the way, is actually a higher percentage than the total of the people who want increased taxes, which only adds up to 78%.

It adds up to 76% but yeah, you are right that is another thing you can extrapolate from it.

The overall theme that I am getting from that poll is that a large majority wants both spending cuts and tax increases, and that majority is weighted towards a plan that has more spending cuts than tax increases.

That I can agree with 100%.

(Sorry about screwing up the math. In my defense, I have clumsy fingers.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Musing about a second term. Has the medical marijuana office opened next to your house?

I don't support Medical MJ. Either legalize it or not. Don't turn physicians into pot dealers.

It's bad enough with the opiate dealers.

Are you saying that, if marijuana was a legal drug, you would not want it prescribed to treat diseases it alleviates? Are you one of the people that support the government not allowing doctors to effectively treat pain in severe cases because some people might abuse it? If so, why?

 

[EriktheRed]

Guess what? We have a hefty bill to pay now for our military adventurism. It didn't go away because Bush told you he wouldn't raise your taxes.

Bush just left it up to someone else to pay for his wars.

Another irony is that before this Conservatives used to say that one of the few legitimate functions of any government was waging war, yet they couldn't be bothered to chip in a little even for that.

 

[saveliberty]

Guess what? We have a hefty bill to pay now for our military adventurism. It didn't go away because Bush told you he wouldn't raise your taxes.

Bush just left it up to someone else to pay for his wars.

Another irony is that before this Conservatives used to say that one of the few legitimate functions of any government was waging war, yet they couldn't be bothered to chip in a little even for that.

Only conservatives voted for the wars and their funding?