Pew Poll Shows Majority Of Americans Favor Ending Tax Cuts For the Wealthy

[g5000]

Would you be opposed to a consortium of the uber-rich 1% agreeing to pay off the national debt? And what kinds of concessions would you agree to? Like I said, broad philosophical question, but an interesting one I think.

If a bunch of rich people wanted to donate their own money to pay off the national debt, I certainly would not want anyone to stand in their way.

What should they get in return? A nice medal and a big cake. I'd even be okay with the medal and cake being at taxpayer expense.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

For all the idiots out there, 250,000 dollars does not make you one of the wealthy. Neither does 350,000. These people are upper middle class not rich.

So in essense Obama would be raising taxes on the middle class.

People who make a million dollars a year are rich but this tax will not hurt them it will hurt the 250-350 range people though.

No one but the lunatics on the Right edge of Limbaugh-Land consider 250k + middle class, dummy.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Would you be opposed to a consortium of the uber-rich 1% agreeing to pay off the national debt? And what kinds of concessions would you agree to? Like I said, broad philosophical question, but an interesting one I think.

If a bunch of rich people wanted to donate their own money to pay off the national debt, I certainly would not want anyone to stand in their way.

What should they get in return? A nice medal and a big cake. I'd even be okay with the medal and cake being at taxpayer expense.

LOL. I was kind of getting at "taxpayer expense." I'm curious, as a fiscal conservative, if a bunch of super wealthy dudes and dudettes said to America "We will pay your entire national debt in exchange for X amount of years, tax free" would you agree? And what number would you assign "X"?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

So you're in the 1% then? Is that why you care so much about them being asked to pay four more cents on their dollar? Why exactly ARE you a shill for the 1%?

"I'm just going to put it in a little bit." The liberal mantra.

The federal government wants a little more. What's the harm, right? Just a few percentage points.

Then the states also want to raise taxes on the rich. Just a few more percentage points. What's the harm?

Then the states also want to raise business taxes. Just a few more percentage points. What's the harm?



What sails right over the heads of people like you is that the problem is not that the rich aren't taxed enough. The problem is that the government SPENDS TOO MUCH.

Stop fucking spending so goddam much.

You're wrong. I've said many times on this board that spending definitely has to decrease. But as a Liberal, I want to see Defense cut first. That's all. Cut Defense 20% and I'd entertain cutting entitlements if you can show that you're actually ending fraud and waste and not just making life tougher on people who are already shit on.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Amazing - these fucking welfare cases find $250K "rich."

Fucking priceless.

If you live in NYC and own a home, between sales, income & property taxs you can shave 60% right off that $250k.. then you're left with $100k.. yeah.. good luck.

You should stop watching Fox News.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...doocy-says-someone-earning-250000-pays-half-/

You should stop watching and reading EVERYTHING because your ability to comprehend what you're taking in is non existent.

Lol @ 4/10 is a majority

 

[Chris]

No more welfare for the wealthy.

They need to pay their fair share.

 

[Dick Tuck]

For all the idiots out there, 250,000 dollars does not make you one of the wealthy. Neither does 350,000. These people are upper middle class not rich.

So in essense Obama would be raising taxes on the middle class.

People who make a million dollars a year are rich but this tax will not hurt them it will hurt the 250-350 range people though.

The average one percenter is worth close to $20 million. That's total wealth. If we are talking about annual income, then you have to earn $380,000 a year to get into the One Percent Club.

Funny that the top .1%, like Romney, has failed to exploit capitalism to have any real trickle down, yet the right goofballs think he'll change things for the average American, if he were to have the power or government. What a bunch of stooges.

 

[Dick Tuck]

For all the idiots out there, 250,000 dollars does not make you one of the wealthy. Neither does 350,000. These people are upper middle class not rich.

Didn't you know - the "IRS" says 250K is "wealthy," so that's what turd-sucking welfare case knuckle dragging inbred Liberals are gonna go with, cause the "Guvmint" told them so....

So you think the top 10% is poor? Are you really this big of an idiot?

 

[g5000]

Stop fucking spending so goddam much.

You're wrong. I've said many times on this board that spending definitely has to decrease. But as a Liberal, I want to see Defense cut first. That's all. Cut Defense 20% and I'd entertain cutting entitlements if you can show that you're actually ending fraud and waste and not just making life tougher on people who are already shit on.

I cannot take any "solution" seriously that establishes an arbitrary number like "cut defense 20%".

That kind of shit used to drive me crazy in the military. When I was an instructor, they told us "cut training by ten percent". They did not want to hear whether or not training should be cut by ten percent. And it definitely should not have been. I considered that seriously destructive to our military readiness.

We should instead be looking at what bases we need, what interests we should be protecting, what interests are better protected by those who have more to lose instead of us, and so forth.

How many aircraft carrier groups do we need, how many MEUs, how many squadrons, how many divisions, etc.

Then we need to right-size ourselves domestically. Means test entitlements, raise the retirement age, reform welfare, reform health care the right way, and so forth. Eliminate or reduce programs that have either outlived or outgrown their original intended purposes. How many standards for eligibility for various government programs have we loosened over the years? Let's scale those back to their original boundaries. How many were never indexed to things like average lifespan or inflation that should have been?

We need to reduce our government in sensible ways, not with arbitrary numbers. If you say "reducy by 20 percent", then it becomes a political popularity contest to see who loses, and has nothing to do with making government efficient.

After we do all that, then let's see how much that all costs. Then we can talk about revenue reform.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

If you live in NYC and own a home, between sales, income & property taxs you can shave 60% right off that $250k.. then you're left with $100k.. yeah.. good luck.

You should stop watching Fox News.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...doocy-says-someone-earning-250000-pays-half-/

You should stop watching and reading EVERYTHING because your ability to comprehend what you're taking in is non existent.

Lol @ 4/10 is a majority

It is dummy. Go look up the definition of majority. Or you can refer to my post above where I gave you two dictionaries' definitions of the word. Idiot.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Stop fucking spending so goddam much.

You're wrong. I've said many times on this board that spending definitely has to decrease. But as a Liberal, I want to see Defense cut first. That's all. Cut Defense 20% and I'd entertain cutting entitlements if you can show that you're actually ending fraud and waste and not just making life tougher on people who are already shit on.

I cannot take any "solution" seriously that establishes an arbitrary number like "cut defense 20%".

That kind of shit used to drive me crazy in the military. When I was an instructor, they told us "cut training by ten percent". They did not want to hear whether or not training should be cut by ten percent. And it definitely should not have been. I considered that seriously destructive to our military readiness.

We should instead be looking at what bases we need, what interests we should be protecting, what interests are better protected by those who have more to lose instead of us, and so forth.

How many aircraft carrier groups do we need, how many MEUs, how many squadrons, how many army divisions, etc.

Then we need to right-size ourselves domestically. Means test entitlements, raise the retirement age, reform welfare, reform health care the right way, and so forth. Eliminate or reduce programs that have either outlived or outgrown their original intended purposes. How many standards for eligibility for various government programs have we loosened over the years? Let's scale those back to their original boundaries. How many were never indexed to things like average lifespan or inflation that should have been?

We need to reduce our government in sensible ways, not with arbitrary numbers. If you say "reducy by 20 percent", then it becomes a political popularity contest to see who loses, and has nothing to do with making government efficient.

After we do all that, then let's see how much that all costs. Then we can talk about revenue reform.

You make some valid points. And I'll concede that 20% was just a flat number I pulled out of my ass to make a point. But let ask you: If people who do this for a living say that we should cut 20% from Defense because we can afford to and not sacrifice any of our security, would you be okay with it then?

And are you willing to apply the same sensible approach to cutting entitlement spending? Making sure it's not a political football, so to speak?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You should stop watching Fox News.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...doocy-says-someone-earning-250000-pays-half-/

You should stop watching and reading EVERYTHING because your ability to comprehend what you're taking in is non existent.

Lol @ 4/10 is a majority

It is dummy. Go look up the definition of majority. Or you can refer to my post above where I gave you two dictionaries' definitions of the word. Idiot.

You keep thinking that. Your irrelevance matters not.

 

[blackhawk]

Poll Finds 4 in 10 in U.S. Favor Ending Tax Cuts for Wealthy - SFGate

The survey by the Pew Research Center released yesterday shows that 44 percent said the higher taxes would be beneficial, while 22 percent said such a move would harm it and 24 percent said there would be no effect.

In an almost identical finding, 44 percent said the higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans would make the tax system fairer; 21 percent said the result would be a less fair structure and 25 percent said it would make no difference.

So yeah...How come the Republicans in Congress aren't behind what the majority of the nation wants again?

Wow the majority want someone else to pay more shocking. I wonder how many of that majority would be willing to pay higher taxes for the benefit of the country? It's always much more popular to give away more of someone else's money than it is your own.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Poll Finds 4 in 10 in U.S. Favor Ending Tax Cuts for Wealthy - SFGate

The survey by the Pew Research Center released yesterday shows that 44 percent said the higher taxes would be beneficial, while 22 percent said such a move would harm it and 24 percent said there would be no effect.

In an almost identical finding, 44 percent said the higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans would make the tax system fairer; 21 percent said the result would be a less fair structure and 25 percent said it would make no difference.

So yeah...How come the Republicans in Congress aren't behind what the majority of the nation wants again?

Wow the majority want someone else to pay more shocking. I wonder how many of that majority would be willing to pay higher taxes for the benefit of the country? It's always much more popular to give away more of someone else's money than it is your own.

So your taxes will go up if the end the tax cuts for the 250k plus crowd, I'm assuming. Otherwise I can't quite understand your flabbergast at this poll.