StanCollender'sCapitalGainsandGames Washington, Wall Street and Everything in Between



23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit

10 Aug 2011
Posted by Bruce Bartlett

 

Can/Should the Budget Deficit Be Reduced with Spending Cuts Alone or Should There Be Some Increase in Taxes?
Poll
Date
Some/All Taxes
No Taxes/All Spending
8-10
66
33
8-10
63
36
8-9
68
29
8-4
63
34
8-2
60
40
7-26
68
19
7-25
56
34
7-21
64
34
7-19
66
32
7-19
62
27
7-18
69
28
7-14
67
25
7-13
73
20
6-9
61
37
6-9
59
26
5-13
64
33
5-12
61
27
4-29
76
20
4-25
62
33
4-22
66
19
4-20
62
36
3-15
67
31
12-12
62
36
Average
8-10
65
30

nevermind the people

Well, that's nice, but what does it matter?

The specifics of the GOP's agenda on taxation have never been popular (at least not in the past 15 years). But they do it anyway.

The health of the economy, our level of revenues compared to other countries, our historical experience with tax rates, the popularity of these policies-- none of this matters to today's Republican Party.

No one who voted for Ronald Reagan because they liked his policies is left in the GOP. Reagan worsened the debt, of course, but at least he cared about it and took steps to address it. Today's GOP is the party of the Bush tax rates, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Medicare Part D-- and all Republican leaders, like Ryan, Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, went along with all this stuff. They just plain don't care about policy, they just want to enrich their friends and donors, by any means necessary.

Meanwhile, people also tell pollsters that they want the supercommittee to compromise. Even a majority of Republicans say so. But, as anyone who's followed politics in the past decade knows, it doesn't matter. The Republicans appointed 6 signees of Grover Norquist's pledge to the supercommittee. So, it'll be debt ceiling hostage crisis redux. Maybe the Republicans can get a few more ratings agencies to downgrade us.

I make pretty much all these points in this post, wherein I compare the GOP's desire for tax cuts to the honey badger's desire for food.


Republicans

I don't expect these polls to change their minds. But it should give Democrats a reason to stop being afraid to be more aggressive about raising revenues to deal with the deficit. They act like timid little mice whenever the subject comes up.


and the radio is in the hands of such a lot of fools

Thanks for replying. I definitely didn't mean to suggest that you'd wasted your time, this is, for sure, a worthwhile point. I certainly hope you're right that it could stiffen the spines of deficit hawks, but... well, there's not a whole lot of historical experience to support that hope.

I wonder if public opinion polls even really matter, to either party. They seem to me to be more sensitive to what's being said on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC than to what's actually going on in the country.

Martin Gilens studied almost 2000 survey questions between 1981 and 2002, and found that: “Whether or not elected officials and other decision makers “care” about middle-class Americans, influence over actual policy outcomes appears to be reserved almost exclusively for those at the top of the income distribution.” Gilens found that policy is highly responsive to the views of the wealthiest, very unresponsive to the views of the bottom 50%, and more or less wholly unmoved by the views of the bottom 10%.

It's hard to see how Citizens United, AZ Free Enterprise, & Sorrell are going to improve things.

So the "apres nous, le deluge" attitude of the GOP & its benefactors may continue to carry the day indefinitely.


But most people are ignorant

But most people are ignorant of even the most fundamental economic concepts.

We don't teach economics in secondary school.

You might as well ask people walking up 77th Street how the surgeon on duty at Lenox-Hill should open up the heart of the guy on the operating table.

Either that or start teaching Macro.

I'd prefer the latter - we could dispense with silly notions like "stimulus means spending."


Gilens Study

What a delightfully rich study. It does concern me as to the response of the lower income brackets as they slowly discover how much less valuable they are in our political system.


The Dems probably look at the

The Dems probably look at the poll data, see that the public prefers a balanced approach, and conclude that it should be their position. Their OPENING position. That's a mistake, given the GOP negotiation strategy. Yet they keep doing it.


They TRIED "balanced" in the UK - how's that workin' for ya?

They tried "balanced" last year in the UK. Look what that did to GDP, job creation and, importantly, inflation adjusted tax revenue.

There does come a point where hiking tax rates reduces tax revenue. It happened this year in the UK. We have an income tax. The tax rate and the tax base are interrelated. Cuts to the tax rates boost the tax base and vice versa. There IS a Laffer Curve - that is undeniable. The only question is where we are on it. Clearly the UK was not where they thought they were.

As for loopholes, yes, eliminate them. But the biggest one by far - in fact the only deduction that by itself is material relative to a $1.5 TRILLION deficit, is the home mortgage interest deduction. I'm all for phasing that out. But why don't you take a poll on that one, and see what the masses think? So where does that get you? It gets you back to everyone wanting to eliminate "all the loopholes - except mine."

The good news is that a balanced budget and ending Fed stimulus is just what we need - our problem isn't underconsumption (the consumption rates reached during the last credit bubble were unsustainable), but under-investment. Why do we have under-investment in the US? Because the return on your investment will come in dollars, the value of which is deteriorating rapidly. Stop the spending, stop the "stimulus" that doesn't "stimulate" anything but commodity prices, strengthen the dollar and watch investment pick up and the economy turn around.


Most democrats and socialists

Most democrats and socialists who want redistribution of wealth, don't realize that most affluent people have EARNED what they have. Without nepotism, without getting a break, or whatever. There are a few exceptions but it is bad business to discriminate against otherwise capable people OR curry favor to those with a wealthy pedigree. It's a non-sustainable business model. The cream rises to the top - for a reason. They are smarter, more talented, work harder, are more fiscally stable, whatever. Democrats don't want to acknowledge this. So the democratic ideology, in my opinion, RAPES THE ESSENCE OF THE HUMAN SOUL, which is the desire to achieve things on one's own. Democrats say you can't do this or that, that the people who have done this or that must have caught a break somewhere along the way, but you can't do it alone. So let's level the playing field (code for wealth redistribution). You need help to achieve. If we are being honest with ourselves, the greatest achievements in my life, hell anyone's life, is when they do something that they didn't think they could do - and they do it fundamentally on their own. The human spirit sings and soars. Wow! I did that! That was me! Real human growth and development occurs. Healthy, positive energy is created. Confidence is built. I just don't understand the folks who just sit around bemoaning the upper class. And I am straight up middle class. So I guess I should vote democratic, but that will never happen. Ideologically it makes no sense to me. Let the talented, smart, and fiscally sound keep what they earn.


Here is a quote for

Here is a quote for you:

"Progressive taxation has a long history: As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Even the Founding Fathers were in favor of progressive taxation.

You speak of middle-class, care to define that?

You speak of the cream rising to the top because they are smarter, more talented, work harder, are more fiscally stable, whatever. Care to provide facts to back that up?

You speak of wealth distribution. That is what has been going on for at least the last 31 years, all to the top. So really it is time to reverse that trend. If the wealth stays at the top as you insist then this country will fail


Societal stability

I don't know many people bemoaning the upper middle class, but many more should be bemoaning the super rich. Of course it takes hard work to make it. But people that have made it take for granted the entire society providing the structure that allowed their success. It's not at all surprising that people tend to just project the view of an individual onto an entire society, but it's definitely an unjustified form of folk economics. Americans seem to be in denial of the steep class structure underlying society. We don't live in a place where anyone has a chance of making it. Social mobility here is significantly lower than many other developed nations. You do recognize that there are limits to the levels of inequality that a society can handle right? You get what happens when society breaks down right?
You're absolutely right. As long as you sweep under the rug that productivity continues to climb while wages continue to stagnate. And it shouldn't concern anyone that the top 5% owns more than the bottom 95% and that that inequality is accelerating. It isn't relevant that in the capitalist game of musical chairs there is a permanent shortage of jobs. We should also ignore the fact that major corporations like Bank of America and GE not only didn't pay taxes last year, but between them netted $3billion in tax benefits. We should ignore the fact that the financial crisis was caused by criminal fraud (well documented in Inside Job) that has gone unprosecuted. A new study by Northwestern University economists, called The “Jobless and Wageless” Recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-2009,” found that the economic "recovery" is highly uneven: corporate profits captured 88 percent of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than one percent. And we should definitely ignore articles like "The Quiet Coup." "The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time."


Re: Most democrats and socialists

1) Buy and use a dictionary, it's pretty obvious you do not know what Socialist means.

2) Most of the world's and US plutocrats wealth was and is inherited - their daddy/grand-daddy planted the seed ('worked' for it), but the crop now reaps the benefits of compound interest and investments made before they were born.


Shorter Yet Another Budget

Shorter Yet Another Budget Wonk:

The people have no bread? Let them eat cake.


It's not the rich, it's all

It's not the rich, it's all the ways corporations get around playing fair such as polluting, bullying, and stealing. I have nothing against the rich, I just refuse to worship them and pay them for being rich.
Many very intelligent people make the decision to serve others. I'm striaght up middle class too, I have a good standard of living, I work with mentally and physically hanicapped children, and am active in my community. However, two wars, a bank bailout, Wall Street bail out, and corporate welfare is wasting my taxes. I don't care if I pay taxes, I like roads, a fire dept. and public library. I have a big problem wathcing our infrastructure crumble while we throw more money away. We will need social programs when 24% of the population is unemployed or under employed. It beats the alternative, crime spiraling out of control when people are just trying to feed their families.


Replay to Most Democrats Are Socilaists

Then lets have a flat tax. Everyone regardless of wealth pays the same percentage of tax. No loopholes just fairness.

I may be working class but I still put in a full work week to support my family, pay taxes the same as everyone else. There is no fair reason for someone who makes alot more than I do to pay less percentage in taxes. It's not redistribution of weatlh if everyone is paying the same percentage on their taxes. You pay the same percent of your paycheck as I do and live off that. And don't feed me a line of crap about "job creators" cause the only jobs big business are creating are overseas. We wouldnt be having this discussion if all the good paying manufacuring jobs had stayed in this country and a working man was able to make a decent wage. Those kinds of jobs created the middle class in thie country. Now due to unfair trade agreements and "global economy" (buzzword -for corporate greed) those jobs are long gone and the American economy is suffering due to the pain on the middle class and (lowering state of the lower middle class). The Republican philisophy spewed above is very self centered and elitist. In other words we are superior to everyone else and no else matters. let the poor starve, the uneducated remain ignorant, the elderly die. I have heard that before; "Are there not prisons, are there not workhouses? Then let them die and decrease the surplus population!" Oh yeah, it was Mr. Scrooge. He must have been a Republican until he was visited by the spirits and then he became a human being, e.g. a Democrat.


If only this translated into

If only this translated into electoral victories and Congressional votes by moderate Republicans.


They aren't listening.

Bruce, you are hitting your head against a brick wall.

But keep doing it.


Polls

I'm curious, does FOX do polls and how do they compare to the above ?


Fox

Does do polls. But to my knowledge it has never asked a question on this topic. If you come across one that I have missed, call it to my attention. I have not been selective. I put in every poll I could find including Rasmussen. Unfortunately, there isn't a good database for polls where you can find everything.


They Must be saying

Et tu, Rasmussen?


Strength of political bases

Bruce -

I suspect we all hear you re that people support tax increases [although the Tea Party and Grover Norquist certainly don't] Unfortunately as a recent NEC lunch pointed out the major [consumer - employer healthcare, mortgage interest] savings through the tax code aren't going anywhere soon. [Talk about a 3rd rail!].

It depends on how people respond to the deficit reduction deal, its charming consequences, and the remarkably nastty budgetary idiocy Stan, probably rightly, predicts for the next year [no wonder Bernanke said until June 2103]. I also think there's probably a problem with an energized [if radical] Republican base - we not only have the Tea Partiers, but also everyone who hates Obama's healthcare plan, the Christian right, NRA, etc. etc. It will be interesting to see if Mitt Romnet, who I think has the best chance in a general election, can actually become the Republican candidate. The other part of the problem is that many Democrats are disaffected with Obama - the liberals, but also people who bought into "hope" and those of us who expect real leadership when it's so clearly needed.


Even Rasmussen can find a

Even Rasmussen can find a majority in this instance...


Very nice data. What do the

Very nice data. What do the polls show about the wealthy elites that fund political campaigns and bankroll challengers? How do they prefer to balance the budget? Our Congress often works on the "1 Dollar 1 Vote" Principle. Money talks. Congress Listens.


Tax me, please!

The Bush tax cuts must be allowed to expire!

Cap and phase out the mortgage interest deduction.
Cap: $50,000
Non-principal residence - three year phase out
Principal residence - ten year phase out

Phase out farm subsidies.
Gross income > $1M - three years
$1M < Gross income > $500K - five years
$500K < Gross income > $250K - eight years
Gross income < $250K - ten years

Each of these suggested tax-code changes would have an impact on our family's tax burden but we must return to the time where we pay for what we spend.


"Each of these suggested

"Each of these suggested tax-code changes would have an impact on our family's tax burden but we must return to the time where we pay for what we spend." Are you planning on including those who pay nothing? Just curious.


Setting aside the part where

Setting aside the part where everybody pays some taxes, even those who have no federal income tax liability...

What money do you think those people have?


Here's the plan:

OK, I'm "planning on including those who pay nothing?"

Henceforth, they pay one cent.

You get taxed down to the current no-tax rate level, for ten years.

After that time we'll examine your bare feet to see if they've sprouted "boot straps."


Meaningless

Show us the breakdown of net taxpayers (those that pay more in taxes than they receive back in direct subsidies) that support higher taxes vs net tax leaches (those that receive more subsidies than they pay in taxes) that support higher taxes. That would reveal the *real* truth.

The same types of polls also show that the average *maximum* percentage of gross pay that people think is "fair" for the government to take is well under what higher income taxpayers *already* pay.

These polls are questions in a vacuum looking for a particular result, and get it by not ensuring that those polled are actually educated about the issues.


Given the Republican Position

That NO tax increases be considered, how is the table a fraud? It defines the question in the Republicans' own terms. If you flip the categories, you get a position no one is advocating (all taxes vs. compromise or no taxes).

It's not the Democrats' fault that the Republican position defines itself on the extreme end of the scale.


Why don't we have

Why don't we have representative government? These polls reflect how I feel. Who is representing me? Did these politicians sign Norquist's pledge before, or after they were elected?


You haven’t addressed what is

You haven’t addressed what is behind all the Republicons are doing: stealing workers retirement funds. The CBO projected that the surpluses Clinton left for Bush were enough to pay off the entire US debt by the time that the Social Security/Medicare trust funds would have to be amortized for beneficiary payments, all without having to raise taxes to pay for the amortization of those trust funds. These “surpluses” were made up entirely of excess payroll taxes building up the trust funds. Bush took those excess payroll tax receipts and gave them “back” as income tax reductions, heavily weighted to the wealthy–who didn’t create those surpluses in the first place. By doing this, Bush guaranteed that taxes would have to be raised in order to amortize the trust funds. The failure to do so simply permits the Republicons to steal the money contributed by workers for their retirement. Everything about not raising taxes or limiting expenses, is about stealing our money.


Retirement Funds

Um, it is the Obama administration that has imposed 0% COLA adjustments two years in a row, even though anyone who does the family's shopping knows that there is real inflation.

And it is Bernanke who is maintaining 0% interest rates.

If you REALLY are interested in how the top 1% of the top 1% benefit at the expense of everyone else (not just benefit more, but at the expense of everyone else), then look to Fed policy.

Someone else getting a tax cut doesn't harm you. Someone else getting a raise you didn't get doesn't harm you. Wall Street getting a 0% cost of funds while the value of your savings is reduced via the printing press DOES harm you.


Tax Cuts WILL create jobs is one ofthe greatest joke of all time

Business hire people when they NEED to hire people, not because some marginal tax rate went up or down 3%. Duhh. But the Tea Party types lap up this joke like a kitty to warm milk.


All other things being equal, income tax cuts fuel investment

How are jobs created? Investment.
What is invested? Capital.
What is capital? Accumulated earnings - your firm's or your investors'.
What are accumulated earnings? All prior years' AFTER TAX income.

It's not a question of encouragement or discouragement so much as it's the multiplier effect - the reinvestment of the initial tax savings.

Key phrase though is "all other things being equal." As Milton Friedman pointed out, government borrowing crowds out private sector investment (which is why "stimulus" spending of borrowed funds in order to attempt to "put people back to work" on a net basis is akin to taking water out of the deep end of the pool, dumping it back into the shallow end and hoping for the water level to rise - it never does but that doesn't stop simpletons from pursuing this approach).

What's keeping all things unequal now is the plummeting dollar. Nobody wants to invest here for the same reason that nobody wanted to invest in Argentina a decade ago or Mexico two decades ago. We don't need the jumpstart American consumption - the American consumer is in debt up to his eyeballs. We need to attract investment of capital - of savings. Right now that's foreigners' savings. Nobody's going to make an investment today that will be repaid in deeply devalued dollars 5-10 years from now.


The whole problem here is

The whole problem here is that NONE of these polls are asking, "Would you like YOUR taxes raised to help solve the deficit?" They all ask if they want SOMEONE ELSE'S taxes raised.

It's like asking people if they are in favor of building new oil refineries, then asking them if they are in favor of building an oil refinery next door to their house. Different results.


The problem here is your nonexistent problem

That's not the problem because for most people including the middle class, no taxes will be raised.

The problem is the wealthy and their multinational corporations are paying a smaller % of their income than the middle class pays.

Remember, it's not the total dollars paid that is the test of fairness, it is the % of income.

Right now we have a regressive tax structure that that unfairly taxes those who can least afford it, and gives overly generous tax deductions to those who don't need it.


regressive taxes

How can you say this when virtually 50% of all people pay NO income tax. Dont give me the BS that they pay payroll tax. Ostensibly this is for SSI and Medicare, which are pretty good deals for middle and lower class, and the Earned Income Tax credit refunds it back for lowest earners.

The fact is higher earners pay more --- the opposite of regressive!


The Tax System Explained in Beer

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this..

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible


They myths of the "smaller share" and of "they"

Short term capital gains are taxed at ordinary income tax rates. And the "rich" pay higher rates than you and I do. So no, "they" don't pay a "lower share" than you or I do.

Long term capital gains are taxed at lower rates - at the shareholder level. Stocks trade at multiples of forward earnings - forward AFTER TAX earnings. You buy a stock that trades at 10X forward earnings. It trades for $10/share. The market thinks it will earn $1/share next year. You think they'll land a new contract. They do. The effect on pre-tax earnings is $1/share. The stock price should double, right? But it doesn't. It doesn't go up $10/share. It goes up $6.50/share - because that additional $1 of earnings will be taxed at 35%. YOUR GAIN IS REDUCED BY THE CORPORATE LEVEL TAX. So whether you sell the stock this year or next year, ANY capital gains tax is a DOUBLE TAX.

What we should do in a perfect world to make it fair is tax capital gains at the ordinary income tax rate BUT have a tax credit for the corporate level tax. It would be unwieldly to get that right down to the penny and so instead we have some low capital gains tax rates.

The rationale for a lower long term rate than a short term rate is based on a fallacy - the idea is that they want to "encourage buy and hold" - why? Not because they're looking out for the investor but because they think that more "buy and hold" - less selling - means a more stable market. This is ridiculous. Less selling means less buying (you buy stocks with the proceeds from selling other stocks) which means lower volume which means LESS stability.

But again - our policymakers are lawyers, not economists.

As for "they" - - please go to Yahoo! Finance and look up the ownership of any or all Fortune 500 corporations. You'll see that "institutional ownership" is over 50% for almost all of them. "Institutional ownership" means the shares are held by institutional investors - mostly pension and other retirement funds. I.e., you and me. Mitt Romney's right: there is no "they" - "they" are you and I.


I have the solution! All of

I have the solution! All of those in the poll who say we should raise taxes will voluntarily refuse to take any deductions on their 2011 tax return. Bet THAT would raise some revenues, eh?


Calvinism

The appeal to Calvinist predestination is too strong.

Tax cuts, starving the beast and war profiteering put "Cain and Noah's spawn" in their preordained place.

It is in THE BIBLE.


The last time we had

The last time we had regularly balanced federal budgets was the 1950s.

Average annual federal revenue, in inflation adjusted dollars, has INCREASED in every decade since the 1950s.

In fact, average annual federal revenue per capita, in inflation adjusted dollars, was more than DOUBLE in the 2000s what it was in the 1950s.

We had recurring deficits, and mounting debt, because average annual federal spending per capita, in inflation adjusted dollars, almost TRIPLED in that same time frame.

The notion of a "starving beast" is an outright lie.

The notion of "cuts" - draconian or otherwise - is also an outright lie. Only in Washington does RAISING spending at a rate that still exceeds the combined rate of CPI and population growth - but is less than the degree to which some interest group WANTED to raise spending - constitute a "cut."

The notion of a "beast," though, is the truth. WHERE did the money go? Bridges and roads? Schools? No. It went to two things - bureaucracy and "wars." As for bureaucracy - it is true of any large organization that its primary mission becomes self-perpetuation and growth. But in the private sector there is only one way to do that - at the end of the day the organization has to generate a profit, and (apart from government interference) the only way to consistently do that is to sell something the people want to buy at a price that they are willing to pay, using resources that the people don't prefer to be used to produce something else (that contrary preference being communicated as cost). In the public sector, you just take the money. Why is the government inefficient? It's supposed to be - it's a big vote-buying machine. My family were involved in Democrat politics when I was a kid and we'd go to the campaign headquarters to pick up leaflets to be handed out, signs to be held etc... and EVERYONE there - EVERYONE - was a public employee or a relative of a public employee.

As for "wars" - we've had a lot of them. Vietnam. The War on Drugs. The War on Poverty. The Cold War. Iraq (which has continued for years after we got Saddam). Afghanistan (which continues after we got OBL, who wasn't even in Afghanistan). And now Libya, Yemen and all kinds of places that we won't know about for years. Only one of those wars involved a long-term threat to our nation - the one that we won.

This line people have about "you want your trash picked up, your schools, your roads and bridges, but you don't want to pay for it" is ridiculous - it's insulting. We want to pay for those things - but the other half of the budget, the waste, the vote-buying, the boondoggle, we want to end that.


These are not the polls politicians look at

I find these polls useless in gaining insight into why elected officials vote the way they do. I suspect that if you are a fund raising politician, the "polls" you read come from the direct feedback of your largest donors. The rest of the public really doesn't matter much. The general public after all has continued to vote for politicians who voted for unpaid for tax cuts.

If the American people want politicians to listen to them and raise taxes then they need to vote for different politicians. It's that simple.


Tax them not me

It is pretty obvious when you look at the questions that the results are meaningless. For example, on CNN the majority are in favor of raising taxes on wealthy and corporations, but totally opposed to increasing taxes on middle class (themselves). I want to see a poll where the question is asked should we increase ALL taxes. Consistantly we see that people vote in their self interest, for example dont cut my benefits, but its OK to stick the rich guy. If we have a "revenue enhancement" solution we will need to hit much more than the wealthy.


Why should we increase "all

Why should we increase "all taxes"?


Why increase all taxes

1. there is not enough revenue by ONLY hitting the rich
2. its fairer if everybody shares the pain
3. if you (for example) eliminate ALL the Bush tax cuts you will raise way more revenue (including a lot more from the wealthy) --- because the taxes on first $250K will be higher.


What's the chances the

What's the chances the republicans and grover go to the mats when the FICA tax goes up Jan 1 next year?


professional tax

I wish we could cuts processing time in half by allowing you to prepare an entire tax return.


Tax polls

Many people voting to raise taxes on the rich don't pay anything in federal income tax,

If a person doesnt pay federal income tax their opinion should be disqualified

The top 10% pay 71% of the taxes,the bottom 52% pay nada.


The people who finance

The people who finance elections, for both parties, don't want higher taxes. So... That's that!




Recent comments


Advertising


Order from Amazon


Copyright

Creative Commons LicenseThe content of CapitalGainsandGames.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Need permissions beyond the scope of this license? Please submit a request here.