Skip to comments.WaPo/ABC poll: Six in ten favor raising taxes on $250K+ households for fiscal-cliff solution
Posted on 11/28/2012 10:25:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Well, that $80 billion a year will come in handy, no? That's the impression that six in ten Americans have as a solution to the trillion-dollar deficits in the latest Washington Post/ABC poll — and 39% of Republicans, too. The result demonstrates the political leverage of Democrats in the fiscal-cliff fight, and perhaps the leeway for the House GOP to compromise as well:
Sixty percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll support raising taxes on incomes more than $250,000 a year, long a popular option overall, but also a divisive one: While 73 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents are in favor, far fewer Republicans, 39 percent, agree.
Interestingly, the move to limit deductions doesn't get nearly as much support:
Americans divide on another item on the table, reducing income-tax deductions. In a question testing the concept generally that is, without suggesting that wealthier Americans would be harder hit 49 percent oppose limiting deductions, while 44 percent are in favor. On this option, strong opposition exceeds strong support, although intensity isnt high on either side, 28 vs. 20 percent.
Partisan divisions on this question are less pronounced than they are on a tax hike for the better-off: Support ranges from 45 percent of Democrats and independents to 39 percent of Republicans; opposition, 48 to 51 percent across these groups. Strong opposition, likewise, is similar across partisan groups, 26 to 30 percent.
Does that make any sense at all? Part of the problem with the tax rates, from the populist point of view, is that the wealthy are perceived to have too many ways around them. That’s why Mitt Romney belatedly took up the cause of limiting deductions to a capped amount. That way one can limit the ability to shield income without having unpleasant conversations about the distortions provided by certain types of deductions.
Peter Orszag writes today at Bloomberg that these unpleasant conversations are the reason we won’t see deduction reform, even with a cap:
Lets take a closer look at the effects of such a limit, though. In 2009, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service, taxpayers who itemized their deductions and had incomes of more than $200,000 had average deductions of $50,000 or more. For those with $200,000 to $500,000 in income, average deductions amounted to more than $51,000; from $500,000 to $1 million in income, the average was more than $100,000. At higher incomes, the averages rose further.
That households with incomes of more than $200,000 would be disproportionately affected by the deduction limit is neither surprising nor necessarily troublesome. Here comes the problem. In 2009, those taxpayers deducted more than $300 billion, 90 percent of which came from just three categories: taxes paid (mostly state and local taxes), home-mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
Of the big three, charitable giving is the most discretionary (unless a family moves to a smaller house with a smaller mortgage, or a city or state with lower taxes). The charitable sector thus has the most to lose from a limitation on itemized deductions.
How much money is involved? In 2009, households with incomes of more than $200,000 claimed almost $60 billion in charitable deductions — or about 20 percent of total charitable giving in the U.S. that year. Households with incomes of more than $10 million claimed an average of $1.75 million each in charitable donations in 2009, and they accounted for roughly 5 percent of all giving.
Charitable giving reacts to tax incentives, and in response to any limits on deductions it could even fall by about the same amount as the increase in the tax bill, according to John List of theUniversity of Chicago, who recently reviewed the literature on this subject. Other studies have suggested an effect about half as large. Even that smaller estimate, though, suggests that limiting deductions to $50,000 a year could easily reduce giving by tens of billions of dollars.
How long do you think it will take the charitable sector to figure this out?
Well, how about some simple entitlement reform — like raising the retirement eligibility age? That’s the most unpopular option of all, opposed by two-thirds of Democrats and Republicans:
Sixty-seven percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, oppose another suggestion, raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. And on this idea, strong opposition surpasses strong support by more than 3-1, 49 to 14 percent.
Opposition to increasing the Medicare eligibility age crosses partisan and ideological lines; its 68 percent or more among Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives alike. Instead views relate to age; opposition peaks at 78 percent among adults age 50-64. Its also higher among women and people with less than $100,000 incomes, compared with men and the better-off.
Terrific. The only broad consensus for action is the populist tax-hike option which will solve less than 10% of the problem, and two-thirds won’t even take a basic step like mildly indexing retirement eligibility to life expectancy in order to reduce costs in the biggest fiscal train wreck of the federal budget.
If we could trade marginal tax-rate increases for real cuts in spending and actual entitlement reform that would end the long-term problems in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, I’d take that trade, if somewhat reluctantly. This poll shows that Americans still have not come to grips with the scope and size of the problem … or even basic math.
Obama is right on track for the destruction of Capitalism in America - see tagline.
Let’s just remove all the inflation adjustments on the tax brackets and then inflate everyone out of poverty and into the higher brackets.
How do the folks in New York and The Left Coast feel about this? Both feature a high cost of living and lots and lots of Libs.
9 out of 10 Germans approved of gassing Jews.
8 out of 10 Hells Angels approveof rape.
Democracy and morality do not go hand in hand.
RE: YOUR TAGLINE
The following quote was attributed to an unidentified Czechoslovakian Republic leader, a country that suffered generations under the evil of Socialist / Marxist corruption. The writer clearly and succinctly described what may be a troubling reality for America.
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.
6 out of 10 are economically illiterate.
Wait till all the Obamabots making 250K in NYC, Boston,DC, SF, and LA discover that according to their savior they are now rich. Even Chuckie Cheese Schumer has recognzed that 250 K in such places is not rich. Though the cheese man’s solution violates the Constitutional requirement that taxes be uniform throughout the several states. Anyway I’m for going off the cliff and letting ALL the Obamabots discover just how much money Bush’s tax cuts saved everyone.
These fools are going to be shocked to find out that “taxing the rich” won’t put a dent in the fiscal disaster we are facing. In fact, the projected additional revenues will fund our government for a whopping EIGHT DAYS!!!
So when they say tax the rich and the revenues from the rich are not sufficient, the middle class will be next to fund the gap.
That means 2 out of 10 Americans are complete idiots.
Six in ten are economic nitwits.
Picking one piece out of this article for comment, the author assumes that a big reduction in charitable giving would be viewed as a bad thing. To the contrary, for Obama and much of the left, private charitable giving is viewed as somehow illegitimate and they don’t give near as much as conservatives anyway. They view all assistance as the proper province of government, not the private sector which might give and assist in an unapproved manner.
CBO projections dont show much change in the annual deficit over the next decade. So even if the additional income taxes amounted to the $829 billion figure, the extra revenue would not eliminate the annual deficit, and it would do nothing to pay down the accumulated national debt of $16 trillion.
I’d love to see the cites for those poll results. And it looks like you are equating a partial return to pre-2001 tax rates to genocide and rape. Such a move might not be economically wise or useful, but not immoral.
How many of the 47% (who don’t pay federal income taxes) would agree to pay some money - even just a little - if it will help get the US out of recession?
I bet the number is pretty close to 0.
Yet they would still demand that others pay...
That was the backdrop of my “nitwit” judgment. No matter how much they take, and from whom they take it, there will never be enough to pay for the “benefits” our government is currently promising. As Mark Steyn says, there’s not enough money in the whole world to pay the U.S.’s bills.
In my opinion, there is no reasonable outcome other than a complete crash. The author’s closing line about matching higher taxes with spending reform is just the same old dream sequence. It will never happen. If the political will to reform spending existed, the reform would happen without any increases in tax rates ... and then revenues would increase, anyway, as the economy crawled out from under a rock and began laying eggs (so to speak).
“6 out of 10 are economically illiterate.”
You’re being very generous.
Idiots it’s not about raising taxes on incomes it’s about more gov spending,it’s where the money will go to.
This is why Obama was reelected. It is what he believes.
Only answer - go off the cliff, everybody pays - and don't increase the federal debt ceiling. When checks stop coming, maybe the takers will realize WE'RE OUT OF MONEY!
The people have made their choice - now let them suffer!
With a Deficit and Debt as large as ours, you can confiscate not only 100% of the earnings of “The Rich”, but all of their accumulated assets, and you still don’t permanently cover the deficit or retire the debt.
There aren’t enough rich people.
Socialism has to come after the Middle Class. That’s where the money is.
6 out of 10 believe stealing is OK (as long as it’s not from them). The republic is dead - long live mob rule (AKA democracy)...
That’s what I’v been sayin’. Hit the gas pedal. Go off the cliff. Let it burn to the ground. That’s the only way you’ll ever get the lollipops away from the babies!
You are right. That is the completely absurd part of this debate. Sure, let’s hike taxes on the rich. And it will barely make a dent in the deficit. And, as was the case in England, all the sudden the ranks of people earning over $1 million will drop through the floor as they either defer compensation or leave the country. Then what? What is the game plan then? There is none because the Dems don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class to cover their out of control spending.
The answer is very simple. Either cut spending back to about 18% of GDP to match taxes or we get a huge Middle Class tax hike to cover the spending. That is the choice but the Dems don’t want to say it and the media covers for them.
And the American population is so drunk on the Welfare State that they think they can keep getting benefits with the “rich” paying for them. Its why the rotten system is on its last legs.
Only answer - go off the cliff, everybody pays - and don't increase the federal debt ceiling. When checks stop coming, maybe the takers will realize WE'RE OUT OF MONEY!Won't make any difference.
They'll still blame Bush/Republicans/conservatives. You can't overcome generations of brainwashing*.
*public schools and the NEA
6 in 10??
That's not Romney's 47%, thats 60%.
Romney was off by 13%
Clueless Republicans, this was Romneys main argument too. Maybe he used Gallop and Rasmussen research to tell him that it was a big winner.
I think Kissinger said something similar about American voters years ago. But replace “Chilean” with “American” and it sure fits:
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”
When I first read this (or similar) quote years ago I thought “What a pompous ass”. Now I realize Kissinger was right.
Did those 6 in 10 consider cutting government waste?
” RE :WaPo/ABC poll: Six in ten favor raising taxes on $250K+ households for fiscal-cliff solution
6 in 10??
That’s not Romney’s 47%, thats 60%.
Romney was off by 13%”
This shows how dumbed-down the American people have become.
Taxes from this will pay for 1 or 2 days of government. Jobs will be lost. Hiring will be curtailed. So the tax will have a net negative benefit on the economy.
The 49.5% have spoken.
There, fixed it.
RE: The 49.5% have spoken.
Where are you getting that number from?
I’m weary of caring, actually.
I say, give them everything they want.
Raise taxes on the rich; go ahead.
Continue to spend money no one has. Free stuff for everyone.
Let it all fall completely apart. You just can’t cure stupidity. Only death can. Let the dumb die.
Isn’t that the percentage that voted for Obama over Romney and the Libertarians, Greens, and associated third partiers?
Then 6 out of 10 are too f’n clueless to waste our oxygen.
Raising those taxes won’t do DIDDLY to avoid the fiscal cliff.
The deduction that must be reduced is the standard deduction.
Those not paying taxes should pay something/more.Reducing the standard deduction as opposed to only fiddling with deductions of those who itemize is what is really fair.
Those who think it is only fair for the well to do to pay taxes must be eliminated. They are enemies of the Republic
Just giving up isn’t going to get that deadbeat brother in law out of your basement. It’s better for the states with half a brain to get out while the getting’s good and leave the rest to self implode.
That's really nice of the 6 in 10 Axholerods to be so generous with someone else's money. Good commies. Good little commies. They're learning.
Romney and everyone says it is 47% getting free stuff. I think it is larger actually when I see the mob at Walmart shopping. Thus, I used a larger number. It is probably over 50% now.
The bigger longer term risk is that after these taxes (over $250K) go up if there is no obvious deterioration of the economy that voters notice and instead the economy appears to improve.
If that happens then it is all over for Republicans, they might as well let Dems run un-opposed because no-one will ever believe them again.
After he signs it there better be a economic crash or its Hillary/Omalley in 2017.
Oh, don’t get me wrong; I agree.
However, my wishes alone aren’t good enough. If people/government listened to me (and you I suppose) then Sarah Palin would be President, Jim DeMint would be Senate Majority Leader and Michele Bachman would be Speaker... ;-)
But look, the voters have spoken... and they’re idiots.
I haven’t given up, I’ve been beaten. The free-stuffers, race-baiters and baby killers have won.
All along I’ve been telling them just how wrong they are. Now they can get to see it themselves. I say let them have what they want so bad.
Yeah, it will hurt the rest of us, too. But elections matter, and our politics lost. It’s not just Romney and Republicans who lost—all conservatives lost. We—our political positions and morality—were rejected by a majority of those who voted. Those who hold a conservative view and didn’t vote can also share the blame.
RE: The bigger longer term risk is that after these taxes (over $250K) go up if there is no obvious deterioration of the economy that voters notice and instead the economy appears to improve.
Well, how many of us really believe based on solid economic grounds that high taxes being bad for the economy IS A SURE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCE, like day inevitable follows night?
If the economic consequences of higher taxes are SURE to follow, how can there be no deterioration of the economy?
But, if there really is NO DETERIORATION of the economy after higher taxes are implemented, then perhaps the democrats are right.... and if they are right, what’s there to worry about? After all, the economy is fine.
Whatever it is, both beliefs can’t be right. One of them has to be wrong.
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living.” —Anonymous
Nothing is as simple as talk radio makes it out to be. they create a simple world for those who long for one.
Either side could be right or maybe the truth is the middle.
The problem is that the economy is very complex and nothing is done in a vaccuum, and since those rich tax cuts dont collect much money compared to GDP it is not obvious that it will create big problems.
Clinton and Dems raised taxes in 1993 and yet the economy grew stronger anyway till an internet bubble crash late in Clintons second term, Bush cut taxes in his first term and the economy seemed to get better the same time a house bubble very dangerously grew, then in late 2007 to 2008 boom.
So both sides claim that these events proved they were right, and that other factors caused one or the other to happen.
So this time it better be obvious to everyone not just FNC viewers that these taxes looked like they blew things up, even if its really Europe that does it,..
“4 of those 6 don’t pay an f*&% cent of federal income tax.”
Oh don’t worry, they will be soon enough. This monster is going to have to be fed. Taxes are going up on EVERYBODY! These knuckle heads are going to crap themselves when they get their first paycheck in January.
Elections have consequences...even for dumb a$$ liberals dreaming of utopia. Reality is a bit*h.
” The bigger longer term risk is that after these taxes (over $250K) go up if there is no obvious deterioration of the economy that voters notice and instead the economy appears to improve.”
I wouldn’t worry too much about this. The economy will not get well.
How about the scheduled spending cuts in full and cuts in federal funding to local governments?
I'm equating one immoral act to another. Murder, rape, and robbery were all crimes the last time I checked. Progressive taxation is immoral. Whether 9 men decide to take away an unequal amount of a 10th man's money by voting to do it or holding him down directly does not matter.
Having a nice fair vote (or poll) doesn't make the outcome a moral act.