Majority Don't Want Tax Cuts For Rich

[Puppycow]

CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

Only 26% want tax cuts for the rich*.

53% want tax cuts for the middle class only, and 14% think all tax cuts should expire.

* I.E., tax cuts on marginal income over $250,000.

This would be a winning issue with the public if democrats would make a stand and refuse to compromise.

 

[Drachasor]

Oh, silly, politicians only care about what the majority things when it would either really hurt them to ignore it or it agrees with them.

That said, I think it would be a winning issue in general. Now is a bad time to fight with so little time and the Holidays. You couldn't get the public involved that much. A 2 year delay on the fight would work well enough. Costly, but I think it is the only way to go about it.

 

[Francesca R]

Is earning $249,999 "middle class"? What kind of nonsense is that? If you don't want tax cuts for the "rich", then tax should increase for everyone above about $50,000. Happy with that?

 

[fishbob]

The rate under consideration is a change of something like 3%.

3 measley percent on the upper income end of the scale.

The change will mean squat to the average citizen.

 

[The Painter]

This poll has different results.

Forty percent want Congress to maintain the tax cuts for everyone, while 44% support setting limits on how much of wealthy Americans' income is eligible for the lower rates.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144989/Vast-Majority-Wants-Aspect-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Extended.aspx

 

[Francesca R]

I suspect polls get varying answers depending on whether the question is "Do you want the ueber-rich to get a tax freebie to buy more yachts?" or "Do you want the gubmint to hike taxes for upper-middle small biz owners when unemployment is 9.8%?". Thus illustrating the limitations of polls.

 

[Bikewer]

In the discussion of this on Diane Rehm's weekly news roundup segment yesterday, one reporter pointed out that the difference of opinion amongst the politicians was much more a matter of belief in policy than anything else.
The supporters of making the tax cuts for all permanent adhering to the idea that tax cuts for the rich increase spending and investment, and thus stimulate the economy.

The naysayers essentially pointing out that this is nonsense.... At least citing studies to that effect. The rich just get richer and investment has not noticeably increased during the period the tax cuts were in place.

Who's right?

 

[Malerin]

I suspect polls get varying answers depending on whether the question is "Do you want the ueber-rich to get a tax freebie to buy more yachts?" or "Do you want the gubmint to hike taxes for upper-middle small biz owners when unemployment is 9.8%?". Thus illustrating the limitations of polls.

The CBS poll isn't worded much different than the gallup one:

Which comes closest to your view about the tax cuts passed in 2001? The tax cuts should be continued for everyone. The tax cuts should only continue for households earning less than $250,000 a year. OR, The tax cuts should expire for everyone.

That's about as non-leading as you can get.

 

[Kestrel]

In the discussion of this on Diane Rehm's weekly news roundup segment yesterday, one reporter pointed out that the difference of opinion amongst the politicians was much more a matter of belief in policy than anything else.
The supporters of making the tax cuts for all permanent adhering to the idea that tax cuts for the rich increase spending and investment, and thus stimulate the economy.

The naysayers essentially pointing out that this is nonsense.... At least citing studies to that effect. The rich just get richer and investment has not noticeably increased during the period the tax cuts were in place.

Who's right?

When the people who would be adversely affected by raising taxes on the rich spend millions of dollars supporting certain politicians, what makes you think that being right has anything to do with how that politician votes?

 

[Thunder]

we all know that folks who earn $500,000 a year or more are desperate not to pay any more taxes.

they will lose their homes, their businesses, their livelyhoods, if their federal income taxes go up 3%.

 

[Kestrel]

we all know that folks who earn $500,000 a year or more are desperate not to pay any more taxes.

they will lose their homes, their businesses, their livelyhoods, if their federal income taxes go up 3%.

Congressman Alan Grayson explains how important these tax cuts are to the people promoting them:

 

[Francesca R]

Who's right?

The tax rise (for the highest income earners) is not likely to have much economic impact. Maybe more impact when there is a large structural level of unemployment but still not enough to slow the economy much. Opposition to it is more likely to be based on opposition to income tax becoming more progressive, and thus the state more redistributional, which it would a little bit. Anyone who favours large spending cuts (and who presumably believes the economy can withstand those) should not really be going on about how taxing the extremely rich will harm growth, because they are internally inconsistent (IE hypocrites who probably really believe something else)

Conversely, those in favour of it are probably that way because they want very rich people to pay proportionally more tax as well. It is--for example--rather hypocritical for those who think the economy needs more stimulus to simultaneously favour any form of tax hike, unless what they really want is more redistribution.

It would be a more honest debate (and can hardly be less vitriolic) if it was more often expressed in terms of redistribution of income, for and against.

 

[Toontown]

In the discussion of this on Diane Rehm's weekly news roundup segment yesterday, one reporter pointed out that the difference of opinion amongst the politicians was much more a matter of belief in policy than anything else.
The supporters of making the tax cuts for all permanent adhering to the idea that tax cuts for the rich increase spending and investment, and thus stimulate the economy.

The naysayers essentially pointing out that this is nonsense.... At least citing studies to that effect. The rich just get richer and investment has not noticeably increased during the period the tax cuts were in place.

Who's right?

I don't know what the optimum level of taxation is to cure the economy.

From the perspective of the country's future, the best possible answer to your question is, no one knows what the optimum level of taxation is to cure the economy.

It would be unfortunate if the politikers do know what the optimum level of taxation is, but half of them are opposed to it for crass political reasons. It would be equally unfortunate if some of them know, but the others are simply too stubborn and stupid to listen to reason.

This is a bad time for politikers to be playing silly games. If we the people find out that that they do know how to cure the economy but half of them are opposed to it for crass political reasons, then we the people would need to hang half of them.

If I were a politiker in Washington right now, I'd keep my bags packed and my getaway plane fueled and sitting near the runway.

 

[Unabogie]

The CBS poll isn't worded much different than the gallup one:

Which comes closest to your view about the tax cuts passed in 2001? The tax cuts should be continued for everyone. The tax cuts should only continue for households earning less than $250,000 a year. OR, The tax cuts should expire for everyone.

That's about as non-leading as you can get.

But it's inaccurate. The tax cuts would continue for everyone under the Democratic plan. Billionaires would get a tax break on all the money they earned up to $250,000. They just would pay a little more on the income above that mark.

It seems like people just don't get the concept of marginal tax rates, hence you hear people saying they'd stop working once they hit $250k, etc.

 

[The Painter]

If Obama can't get the Bush tax rate extended, he is done. A goner. Remember when he said this;

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

He repeatedly vowed “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

If he doesn't extend, everyones taxes will go up. They'll go up more than a dime. He will never recover from it. Just like Bush 41.

 

[Unabogie]

If Obama can't get the Bush tax rate extended, he is done. A goner. Remember when he said this;



If he doesn't extend, everyones taxes will go up. They'll go up more than a dime. He will never recover from it. Just like Bush 41.

So, if the Republicans block the tax cut from passing, like they did today, you think voters will punish Obama for what the Republicans did, and vote for Republicans? Seems like an easy charge to refute.

"Obama promised he'd extend the tax cuts to people's first 250k, but he didn't!"

"That's because you filibustered it while demanding that billionaires get more money and you wanted to pay for it with cuts to Social Security"

You may be right, but if so, that says bad things about our country.

 

[stokes234]

Conversely, those in favour of it are probably that way because they want very rich people to pay proportionally more tax as well. It is--for example--rather hypocritical for those who think the economy needs more stimulus to simultaneously favour any form of tax hike, unless what they really want is more redistribution.

It would be a more honest debate (and can hardly be less vitriolic) if it was more often expressed in terms of redistribution of income, for and against.

I disagree. While I will happily say that I am in favour of greater redistribution of income, I don't believe that tax hikes for the rich are incompatible with more stimulus for the economy. I believe there are better ways to stimulate the economy than to allow the rich to pay less tax, such as spending the money taxed from the rich on constructing homes, nuclear/renewable power sources, new schools/hospitals etc, and employing people to do so.

 

[rwguinn]

Who gets to decide "Rich" thresholds?

 

[MikeMangum]

The tax rise (for the highest income earners) is not likely to have much economic impact. Maybe more impact when there is a large structural level of unemployment but still not enough to slow the economy much. Opposition to it is more likely to be based on opposition to income tax becoming more progressive, and thus the state more redistributional, which it would a little bit. Anyone who favours large spending cuts (and who presumably believes the economy can withstand those) should not really be going on about how taxing the extremely rich will harm growth, because they are internally inconsistent (IE hypocrites who probably really believe something else)

Conversely, those in favour of it are probably that way because they want very rich people to pay proportionally more tax as well. It is--for example--rather hypocritical for those who think the economy needs more stimulus to simultaneously favour any form of tax hike, unless what they really want is more redistribution.

It would be a more honest debate (and can hardly be less vitriolic) if it was more often expressed in terms of redistribution of income, for and against.

I both agree and disagree. Yes, the fundamental issue that determines which side of this debate a person supports is primarily their support or lack thereof for wealth redistribution. However, I strongly disagree with this:

"Anyone who favours large spending cuts (and who presumably believes the economy can withstand those) should not really be going on about how taxing the extremely rich will harm growth, because they are internally inconsistent (IE hypocrites who probably really believe something else)"

Government spending provides short term stimulus, primarily through consumption, at the expense of long term growth. Increased government debt creates a long term drag on economic growth through the crowding out effect and reduced private investment. It is investment that drives economic growth, not consumption. The question of which reduces growth more, higher tax rates (for those who create the majority of jobs) or greater public debt, is not something we can really answer with any degree of confidence yet. But it is certainly not inconsistent to want to try to minimize both. That obviously requires greater cuts in spending (minor, short term reduction in growth) than the amount of revenue lost to potential tax increases.

 

[MikeMangum]

If Obama can't get the Bush tax rate extended, he is done. A goner. Remember when he said this;



If he doesn't extend, everyones taxes will go up. They'll go up more than a dime. He will never recover from it. Just like Bush 41.

I hate to break it to you, but he's already broken that no tax increase pledge. It's not like breaking it again will suddenly cause people to react with revulsion.