As long as it’s someone else who’ll be paying

Poll: 80% of Americans support higher taxes. I respect my fellow Americans, but not their mathematical skills.

17 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

17 responses to “As long as it’s someone else who’ll be paying

  1. Hey

    It’s a BS line from Obama and his cheerleaders. Using a MoveOn PPP poll (the same firm that shows Rick Perry losing to Obama in TEXAS) and cherrypicking the hell out of the numbers. Plus it means “a balanced approach with spending cuts and new revenues”. Only 5% support an all increase deal.

    Meanwhile Rassmussen has 55% of the nation preferring an all cuts deal.

  2. Fred2

    Where does this 80% number come from?

    I suspect it’s taken out of context.
    Nah. I KNOW, studies in my head proved it.

  3. Retired IB'er

    And here is a poll that says exactly the opposite:

    “Recent research conducted by Millionaire Corner/Spectrem Group with investors of all wealth levels indicates that 57% of investors are concerned about a tax hike, regardless of the amount of income and assets they hold.
    A Rasmussen poll released this morning indicates that 55% of Americans don’t support a tax hike in relation to the raising of the debt ceiling.”

    http://www.millionairecorner.com/article/americans-oppose-tax-hike-relationship-debt-ceiling-regardless-wealth-level

  4. stopthechecks

    and how many people didn’t want obamacare yet pelousy still passed it against the will of the people…

    did they respect the will of the people then? but we should now? i don’t think so.

    interesting times we live in, no?

  5. Peg

    Where does this 80% number come from?

    I know where it comes from. But – as ladies and gentlement sometimes read this blog, I am not at liberty to mention the exact spot.

  6. Walt

    Dude –
    This is an out and out lie. And the problem I have with this guy is he lies all the time. Look at this:
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/july_2011/55_oppose_tax_hike_in_debt_ceiling_deal
    Now, only 53% of the population pays taxes. So you don’t think the 47% who don’t pay want everyone else to pay more? Why the frig not? I would bet, if you just polled the taxpaying populace, 90% would be opposed to more taxes. If we don’t control and eliminate spending, we are headed for deep doo doo.
    And I think Connecticut is totally FUBAR’ed.
    You want to play golf tomorrow? Or shoplift at Walgreens? Let me know!!
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  7. Anon

    On the 80%, It’s all in the way you ask the question. I think most people are for some reason pre-disposed to react favorably to the word “balanced” and the word is therefore prejudicial in the context of the question. Then, instead of tax hike or raising taxes, the pollsters sometimes use “raising revenue”. I honestly believe a significant number of American’s are too dumb to know what this means.

  8. Mr. Independent

    I am not a tax fan, but do not understand why closing loopholes, like hedge fund managers paying capital gains rates on ordinary income (so-called “carried interest”) is considered a jobs destroying tax increase. i was directly involved in tax policy, when President Reagan increased taxes by a similar closing of loopholes.

    The first Reagan tax law was, at the time, the largest tax reduction in history at the time. It was followed just year later by the TEFRA law that was the largest increase in history.. Rather than increase tax rates, it closed dozens of loopholes. With a budget bleeding money, I cannot see the harm from combining large expense reductions, with some loophole closing revenue raising as Reagan did.

  9. Just_looking

    If 50% of Americans do not pay taxes, I am quite sure that they vote for a tax increase.

    They question was probably hear as “Would you like higher taxes from everyone else to support. All of the programs that you collect from?”

  10. Peg

    I am on the same page as Mr. Independent when it comes to our beyond-complex and convoluted tax laws. Simplify dramatically, remove a multitude of these loopholes – and deliver a system that does not require years of advanced accounting education to comprehend.

    And all, except those at the very lowest rungs, should be contributing something to our nation – even if it is a very small amount. If you have skin in the game, your perspective changes.

  11. CatoRenasci

    Peg: unless everyone pays some income tax, there will always be a class of voters who have an incentive to vote to increase taxes on everyone else. The “free lunch” crowd of free riders.

    This country would be substantially better off if anyone on the dole, or whose income meant they were not paying any income tax, could not vote.

    Universal suffrage sounds like a great idea, but when those who do not pay the bills have the opportunity to vote to increase the goodies government provides, you will ultimately destroy society.

    We had property qualifications for the franchise in the early republic, and we would not be in the mess we are now financially if we had them today.

  12. Inagua

    Peg – A majority of politicians of both parties prefer a complex tax code because of the fund raising possibilities. For one brief shining moment in 1986 they agreed on a simplfied tax code where all income from all sources was treated the same, deductions were curtailed, and the maximum rate was 28%. it lasted only a few years, and the tax code has gotten steadily more complex since.

    I understand your desire to have more workers pay something, but I do not think it would have the effect you desire because the amount would be low relative to existing non-income tax payroll deductions.

  13. edgewater

    it’s probably too late in the life of this post to have this comment read, but i have a good friend who was, in his working life, head of the u.s. tax practice for a then-big-eight accounting firm. it was his firmly held view that we will never get tax simplification [in a real sense … not the tinkering that may be called tax simplification] for the simple reason that congress lives on the money spent by lobbyists to carve out and protect the thousands of special deals. makes sense.

  14. Out Looking In

    Tea baggers and big spenders alike have to stop sniffing the rhetoric glue…our deficit will soon be 90% of GDP- the point of no return…taxes must be raised- spending reduced (or at least baseline run-off and not increased)…or we can be like Iceland and try to devalue the dollar by 50-80%…of course, that means $10/gal gas and milk, and entry level beamers at $80k,,,until europe tries to devalue along with us…then all teh crap at wal-mart imported from asia will rise 100%….the Icelandic “miracle” is a mirage predicated on the destruction of global purchasing power and the debasement of the icelandic krona….

  15. carolee

    Why in God’s name wouldn’t anybody want to help resolve the economic debt we’re in??? Why does it matter what your neighbor is or is not doing if you are doing well??? Do you need a thank you note from Obama or want to see your name on the list of Donors to the Poor? Give me a break. I think it’s pathetic. Bush told us all to go shopping!!! And the top 2% did — but in Dubai, China, England and Germany. And they created jobs — in India, Russia, China. And they moved wealth OUT of the USA to safer places. All my wealthy friends have not nor will be creating jobs for Americans, nor will they begin to buy American goods or services. My God, they even have surgeries outside the USA! They remain citizens b/c they earn incredible salaries & pay the lowest taxes in the world. But they buy & hire outside the USA. I’m sooo with Mr. Independent. Why not just call it “being charitable”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. I continue to read all the comments from all the whiners with two loaves of bread in their arms. They ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE ONE CRUMB OF THEIR HARD EARNED BREAD TO THOSE “HAVE NOTS” is what I hear!

  16. Mr. Indpendent

    Sorry for the grammar errors above–combination of a phone size screen and +50 eyes.

    Anyway, I am with Peg. Everyone earning money should pay something.

    I also agree in principle about simplifying the tax system. One practical problem is that the system’s complexity is probably responsible directly and indirectly for several million reasonably paying to high paying U.S. jobs—return preparers; high end CPA and attorney tax planners; those involved in offering legal tax research sources both print and online; the writers, editors and other employees for a host of tax publishers offering materials for both tax professionals and lay persons; the professors who train the CPAs and attorneys; those involved in the infrastructure for the above and more. So until they can figure out how to replace these jobs, real tax simplification might have a very bad impact on the economy. It is sad for this to be one of America’s few growth industries but it is.

  17. stopthechecks

    mr I,

    don’t forget estate planning, life insurance associated with estate planning…all that nonsense too.

    carolee,

    people that make, already give plenty of crumbs, it’s time to say enough is enough. if you feel you have extra to give send it in I am sure they will cash the check. spend your money your way don’t spend mine the way YOU think I should spend it.

    let me ask carolee, do you think giving $50 to cigna for bringing in 200 jobs is worth it? is that the kind of responsible spending you like to see? how many more corporations can ct do this for? so if it were five corporations would it be 1000 jobs for $250 million dollars? does that sound like money well spent? the federales don’t know how to properly spend our money so it’s time to stop giving it.