Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A New Poll Shows That Most People Prefer Austerity To The 'Millionaire Tax'
Business Insider ^ | 02/23/2012 | AP

Posted on 02/23/2012 7:05:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most people like President Barack Obama's proposal to make millionaires pay a significant share of their incomes in taxes. Yet they'd still rather cut spending than boost taxes to balance the federal budget, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows, giving Republicans an edge over Democrats in their core ideological dispute over the nation's fiscal ills.

The survey suggests that while Obama's election-year tax plan targeting people making at least $1 million a year has won broad support, it has done little to shift people's basic views in the long-running partisan war over how best to tame budget deficits that lately have exceeded $1 trillion annually.

"Everybody should be called to sacrifice. They should be in the pot with the rest of us," Mike Whittles, 62, a Republican and retired police officer from Point Pleasant, N.J., said of his support for Obama's tax proposal for the wealthy. But Whittles said he still prefers cutting government spending over raising taxes because of federal waste and what he calls "too many rules, too many regulations."

Sixty-five percent of the people in the AP-GfK poll favor Obama's plan to require people making $1 million or more pay taxes equal to at least 30 percent of their income. Just 26 percent opposed Obama's idea.

Yet by 56 percent to 31 percent, more embraced cuts in government services than higher taxes as the best medicine for the budget, according to the survey, which was conducted Feb. 16 to 20. That response has changed only modestly since it was first asked in the AP-GfK poll last March. The question on Obama's tax on the rich was not asked previously.

The poll showed that overall, more people have a positive view of Democrats than Republicans, a ray of hope for Obama and his fellow Democrats

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: austerity; millionaire; tax

1 posted on 02/23/2012 7:05:34 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ve never been employed by a hundredinaire...


2 posted on 02/23/2012 7:11:44 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Glad to hear the people are paying attention to the massive spending that is still going on.I hope the next President decides to keep the Bush era tax cuts for everyone except those who pay nothing.Everyone should have to pay something and you should never get back more than you paid in period.


3 posted on 02/23/2012 7:11:44 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

...I suppose hundredaire would be more like it...


4 posted on 02/23/2012 7:13:06 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

RE: I’ve never been employed by a hundredinaire...

Even thousandaires would have a hard time employing people.


5 posted on 02/23/2012 7:22:39 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I have been employed (for a short time) by millionaires who become hundredaires as their business plans go up in smoke.

Having watched people lose tons of money on a dream, I have a lot more sympathy for venture capitalists, especially those who risk real money on their own endeavors.


6 posted on 02/23/2012 7:23:46 PM PST by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Taxing millionaires at confiscatory rated does not result in more tax revenue.


7 posted on 02/23/2012 7:32:28 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the fascists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Agreed...


8 posted on 02/23/2012 7:33:08 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

I agree. I have a lot of respect for folks who put their own wealth and rep on the line.


9 posted on 02/23/2012 7:34:51 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Well, what to say?

Great Britain has instituted a 50 pence tax assessment on incomes and it failed to generate the expected revenue.

So it "only missed" its target by 50%. Not bad for government work.

The same thing happened in Illinois and New York when they raised taxes on the supposed rich. The result was less revenue than they expected. And in the case of New York, the flight of thousands of millionaires to friendlier climes.

When will they ever learn?
10 posted on 02/23/2012 7:36:34 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba
Everyone should have to pay something and you should never get back more than you paid in period.

Amen!

A couple of weeks ago...on Fox Business of all places...I'm pretty sure I saw a taxpayer-funded commercial touting the Earned Income Tax Credit and telling people where to get more information. Beyond disgusting.
11 posted on 02/23/2012 7:47:28 PM PST by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I’ve never been employed by a hundredinaire...

And without masters, there'd be no slaves, either.

12 posted on 02/23/2012 7:51:31 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Who knows more about how to spent money? ...The people who have made millions of dollars or the people in charge of government who are trillions in debt!!!!


13 posted on 02/23/2012 8:03:19 PM PST by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“It’s not about revenue. It’s about ‘fairness.’” —Steve Dunham


14 posted on 02/23/2012 8:30:07 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the fascists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

It would be interesting to match the $$ from the GDP to that graph. Something I am unable to do.

SF


15 posted on 02/23/2012 9:14:07 PM PST by SwampFoxOfVa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

When an employer offers a wage, and a person accepts the job, slavery is not a part of the process. Therefore your comment made no sense.

Is it your premise that employees under the capitalist system are slaves?


16 posted on 02/24/2012 3:12:54 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
One of the pro-slavery arguments--which even some slaves believed--was that slaves would not be able to make a living without the master.

Same as today's argument that people need millionaires to give them jobs or they would be helpless.

17 posted on 02/24/2012 8:28:13 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
RE: I’ve never been employed by a hundredinaire... Even thousandaires would have a hard time employing people.

Plenty of billionaires on Wall Street the last few years.

Where are all the jobs?

18 posted on 02/24/2012 8:31:57 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

People can start their own businesses. I’m sure there are people who are only worth a hundred thousand or more that employ people, and possibly even some with less financial substance than that, but it’s my take rightly or wrongly, that it takes some level of wealth to employ others. And going after people with wealth is a very good way to have a very negative impact on jobs.

I’m not really buying the slavery comparison here. It may be valid, but I’m not seeing it.


19 posted on 02/25/2012 12:50:45 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

You really think raising personal income taxes on the very rich would reduce the number of employees in business owned by the very rich?

Hogwash.

Exactly the opposite would result: increase personal taxes on the super rich, and they would expand their businesses and create more jobs.

Because they might as well put the profits back into their businesses where it can be written-off as expense rather than into their own pockets where it would be taxed at very high rates.

They will need to expand their businesses if they want to take home as much money as before their tax rates were raised.


20 posted on 02/25/2012 11:28:24 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

You really think raising personal income taxes on the very rich would reduce the number of employees in business owned by the very rich?

Hogwash.

Exactly the opposite would result: increase personal taxes on the super rich, and they would expand their businesses and create more jobs.

Because they might as well put the profits back into their businesses where it can be written-off as expense rather than into their own pockets where it would be taxed at very high rates.

They will need to expand their businesses if they want to take home as much money as before their tax rates were raised.


21 posted on 02/25/2012 11:29:25 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
You really think raising personal income taxes on the very rich would reduce the number of employees in business owned by the very rich?  Yes.

Hogwash. ahead...

Exactly the opposite would result: increase personal taxes on the super rich, and they would expand their businesses and create more jobs.  Because they might as well put the profits back into their businesses where it can be written-off as expense rather than into their own pockets where it would be taxed at very high rates.  They will need to expand their businesses if they want to take home as much money as before their tax rates were raised.


This has worked so well up to now hasn't it.  Let's look at the facts.

In 2008, the top 10% of wage earners paid 70% of income taxes.  LINK

If you wish to see how that percentage has changed since 1980, click in the 10% selector on the right.  Since 1982, the slice of the pie the top 10% wager earners paid, went from 48% to 70%.

What is the status of the private jobs sector today?

Your arguement claims that raising taxes on top income earners, will increase jobs.  Did it?  Using you logic, we should be at the highest levels of employment ever.  Instead we have record unemployment, many folks having given up looking, unemployment benefits being extended out into the future as far as the eye can see.

And to top it all off, Obama agrees with you and wants to raise taxes on top wage earners again.

Lets look at part of the reason why jobs are negatively impacted as the top wage earners are taxed heavier.

In 2010, Income Tax from private wage earners reached 81.6% of federal revenues.  It amounted to $1.663 trillion dollars.  LINK

Using the 2008 figures for what slice of the pie the top 10% of wage earners pay, it is reasonable to think somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% of that $1.663 trillion dollars, or $1.164 trillion dollars was sucked out of the economy as the Federal government went after the 10% wage earners.

Now, is it reasonable to believe that the removal of $11.640 trillion dollars over a decade would have no negative impact on total jobs in the United States?  I don't see how.

Cash taken from the public is burnt off by the government.  Cast left in the hands of the private sector is invested and continues to grow.  More people are employed.

22 posted on 02/27/2012 12:15:27 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

“If you wish to see how that percentage has changed since 1980, click in the 10% selector on the right. Since 1982, the slice of the pie the top 10% wager earners paid, went from 48% to 70%.”

This shows why we have an Oligarchy....them that pays for it owns it.

Its why guys like Buffet call for the wealthy to pay more...when they perceive themselves not getting their way as easily.


23 posted on 02/27/2012 12:17:46 PM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Why should any business hire anyone??????

Answer: to increase profits.

So raising taxes on millionaires is supposed to inspire them to lower their profits by laying off workers?

Makes utterly no sense whatsoever.


24 posted on 02/27/2012 12:45:24 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Your own chart shows that since 1980 taxes paid by the top one-percent have doubled.

Yet since that time their income has nearly quintupled: https://motherjones.com/files/averagehouseholdincome.jpg

And, yes, the government can raise taxes on the top one-percent without reducing cash in the private sector, by the simple expedient of lowering taxes on the rest of us.


25 posted on 02/27/2012 1:03:20 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

“quintupled” should be “quadrupled”


26 posted on 02/27/2012 1:06:32 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

Hilarious. Thanks for arguing the Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barack Obama line of reasoning. I needed a good laugh.


27 posted on 02/27/2012 1:27:53 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
And, yes, the government can raise taxes on the top one-percent without reducing cash in the private sector, by the simple expedient of lowering taxes on the rest of us.

In recent years, the number of U. S. Citizens who pay income taxes has declined to the point that a nearly identical number of people are still paying taxes, as get goods, services, and payments directly from the government without paying in.  In 2009, this figure of people who didn't pay in, was pegged at 49.5%.  LINK

Evidently you see this as healthy.  What percentage of the U. S. populace would you want to see getting goods, services, and payments directly from the government without paying into the system?

Sixty percent?  Eighty percent?  Ninety percent?  Ninety-eight percent?

Isn't it vested citizens who are most likely to try to drive sound fiscal policy?  You're logic would result in almost no positive input from 90% of the public, if you got your way.


28 posted on 02/27/2012 2:56:42 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson