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 ...
I’ve never been employed by a hundredinaire...
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.
...I suppose hundredaire would be more like it...
RE: I’ve never been employed by a hundredinaire...
Even thousandaires would have a hard time employing people.
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.
Agreed...
I agree. I have a lot of respect for folks who put their own wealth and rep on the line.
And without masters, there'd be no slaves, either.
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!!!!
“It’s not about revenue. It’s about ‘fairness.’” —Steve Dunham
It would be interesting to match the $$ from the GDP to that graph. Something I am unable to do.
SF
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?
Same as today's argument that people need millionaires to give them jobs or they would be helpless.
Plenty of billionaires on Wall Street the last few years.
Where are all the jobs?
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.
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.
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.