Poll: Majority want Tax Cuts extended for everybody

[Wiseacre]

Son of a gun.

snippet:

A majority of Americans want the Bush tax cuts extended for everyone, despite a strong push by President Barack Obama to eliminate them on higher incomes, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

The poll found 52 percent of registered voters saying they want all the tax cuts extended, including the tax cuts for incomes above $250,000, while 43 percent want the cuts extended just for incomes below that threshhold.
.
.
Yet some of the strongest support for extending all of the tax cuts came from some of Obama’s most reliable supporters, such as young voters, minorities and the poor and working class.

Young voters ages 18-29 favored tax cuts for everyone by a margin of 69-29, the largest margin of any age group.

Latinos favored tax cuts for all incomes by 62 percent to 36 percent. Whites supported tax cuts for every income by 50 percent to 44 percent. African-Americans split, 48 percent for limiting the tax cuts to incomes below $250,000 and 47 percent for extending them to all incomes.

And those making less than $50,000 supported tax cuts for all incomes by 53 percent to 41 percent.

“For all three groups, there’s a fairly large gap in their support for Obama and how they’re reacting to the tax proposal,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College, which conducted the poll. “It may call attention to how connected they are to the proposal itself.”


Read more here: Poll: Majority want tax cuts for all, even the wealthy | McClatchy

 

[Wiseacre]

" This survey of 1,010 adults was conducted July 9 -11. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. To increase coverage, this landline sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of cellphone numbers. The two samples were then combined. Results are statistically significant within plus or minus 3.0 percentage points. There are 849 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The error margin increases for cross-tabulations. "

 

[Conservative]

Hey Obama.....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

But wait! Conservaderps said 4/10 is a majority.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obama is out of touch. His hardcore left turn on businesses and taxes conflicts with most Americans beliefs.

 

[Seawytch]

Son if a gun... Different poll, different results.

http://m.heraldnet.com/heraldnet/pm_111229/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CE3EfSxi

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Son if a gun... Different poll, different results.

HeraldNet.com : Poll: Public supports raising taxes on rich

Those are basically the same results. You just don't know how to read them. A clear 46% think its a negative or pointless thing to do. 46%>44%

 

[ScienceRocks]

Maybe we could get out of all these worthless wars? No more war in the middle east and no more aid for AFRICA. Next Obama could reform (when pigs fly) welfare to NOT include illegals anymore.

I believe it is time to tell the bankers and globalist to go fuck themselves. NO MORE TRILLIONS for YOU PIGS. This way we won't have to raise taxes on the people.

 

[Steelplate]

I'd rather see them expire for everyone than extended for everyone.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd rather see them expire for everyone than extended for everyone.

Got any sound economic idea of what will happen to the economy if that occurs? You'd think that the businesses would raise the price of their good on the demander to make the same "profit" as pre tax.

 

[Steelplate]

why? because some fat cat won't be able to pay cash for his next Mercedes this year? Oh....that's right, I keep forgetting...only the little people have to make sacrifices to bring down the debt....the wealthy get to raise prices to make up for it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

why? because some fat cat won't be able to pay cash for his next Mercedes this year? Oh....that's right, I keep forgetting...only the little people have to make sacrifices to bring down the debt....the wealthy get to raise prices to make up for it.

When they raise prices is when we little people get hurt. Think about that and how it lowers our ability to buy products(like food).

 

[signelect]

Let just hope that he is too stupid to pay attention to the polls or what the taxpayers want. I betting he is.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The question is can screwing over the rich to transfer wealth to a lower class maintain productivity? If it lowers then our entire living standard will drop. We poor and middle class people will be poorer with more(cash).

The poor doesn't make a product or hire any workers(at a far lower level if they do). Giving more power to buy to the poor won't off set the loss of productivity.

It is like what Chavez did when he nationalized and moved the wealth around. The gdp lowered and I'd say his nation is now worse off.

 

[Steelplate]

why? because some fat cat won't be able to pay cash for his next Mercedes this year? Oh....that's right, I keep forgetting...only the little people have to make sacrifices to bring down the debt....the wealthy get to raise prices to make up for it.

When they raise prices is when we little people get hurt. Think about that and how it lowers our ability to buy products(like food).

you don't get it...they don't HAVE to raise prices...they CHOOSE to.

 

[eflatminor]

why? because some fat cat won't be able to pay cash for his next Mercedes this year? Oh....that's right, I keep forgetting...only the little people have to make sacrifices to bring down the debt....the wealthy get to raise prices to make up for it.

In which fantasy world has the debt been reduced or even contemplated? Last I check, the federal government spends over a trillion more per year than it takes in revenue. No people, little or big, can make that up. It's a spending issue.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Poll: Majority want Tax Cuts extended for everybody

Much like Health Care Reform, the majority doesn't KNOW anything about BU$HCO's tax-cuts.​

CLINTON Tax Rates
(Pre-BU$HCO)​

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

 

[Wiseacre]

" Much like Health Care Reform, the majority doesn't KNOW anything about BU$HCO's tax-cuts. "

I suspect they know more than you think. You display the prevalent democrat mindset: the public is too stupid so we need to tell them everything they need to know and make their decisions for them.

 

[Steelplate]

The question is can screwing over the rich to transfer wealth to a lower class maintain productivity? If it lowers then our entire living standard will drop. We poor and middle class people will be poorer with more(cash).

The poor doesn't make a product or hire any workers(at a far lower level if they do). Giving more power to buy to the poor won't off set the loss of productivity.

It is like what Chavez did when he nationalized and moved the wealth around. The gdp lowered and I'd say his nation is now worse off.

why is paying a decent wage screwing over the rich? It's pretty obvious that wages, benefits and the ability to plan for your future(saving, college for the kids, retirement, unexpected emergencies) is what this is all about. The people who have benefitted most in this country have done it by screwing the workforce. If the workforce was viable financially(that is, not living paycheck to paycheck...or worse...supplementing through credit cards), there would be a hell of a lot more revenue in the public coffers to pay down the debt and to be able to maintain and upgrade a crumbling infrastructure that is causing a huge loss in production.

As has been pointed out by Conservatives...the top 1% is actually a small number of people. Those people however, are themselves highly responsible for much of our economic woes by holding our "regular citizens" hostage by saying...."won't work for peanuts? Fine...we'll just send your job to someone who will".

That money that got paid to the foreign countries' governments....that got paid to foreign labor? that used to be what we built this great country upon. Money in people's pockets means demand for goods and services....demand means business...business means profits...profits mean taxable income...taxable income means we can get back into the black at some point.

but it's going to take sacrifices for us all....not just the little guy.

 

[Wiseacre]

The question is can screwing over the rich to transfer wealth to a lower class maintain productivity? If it lowers then our entire living standard will drop. We poor and middle class people will be poorer with more(cash).

The poor doesn't make a product or hire any workers(at a far lower level if they do). Giving more power to buy to the poor won't off set the loss of productivity.

It is like what Chavez did when he nationalized and moved the wealth around. The gdp lowered and I'd say his nation is now worse off.

why is paying a decent wage screwing over the rich? It's pretty obvious that wages, benefits and the ability to plan for your future(saving, college for the kids, retirement, unexpected emergencies) is what this is all about. The people who have benefitted most in this country have done it by screwing the workforce. If the workforce was viable financially(that is, not living paycheck to paycheck...or worse...supplementing through credit cards), there would be a hell of a lot more revenue in the public coffers to pay down the debt and to be able to maintain and upgrade a crumbling infrastructure that is causing a huge loss in production.

As has been pointed out by Conservatives...the top 1% is actually a small number of people. Those people however, are themselves highly responsible for much of our economic woes by holding our "regular citizens" hostage by saying...."won't work for peanuts? Fine...we'll just send your job to someone who will".

That money that got paid to the foreign countries' governments....that got paid to foreign labor? that used to be what we built this great country upon. Money in people's pockets means demand for goods and services....demand means business...business means profits...profits mean taxable income...taxable income means we can get back into the black at some point.

but it's going to take sacrifices for us all....not just the little guy.

You are essentially talking about wage controls, right? Or maybe minimum wages? Or both, do you really think it would work, without impacting economic growth? Just like with price controls, it doesn't work very well IMHO. Anybody out there got a link to any economist who thinks you can do that with no consequences? Love to see it.