July 31, 2012

"Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy Is Lowest Priority Issue, Even Among Obama Voters."

Gallup discovers.

52 comments:

TosaGuy said...

Probably because in the end the "wealthy" turn out to be anyone who actually pays income taxes.

pauldar said...

Well, taxes the wealthy ( anyone that makes over $1.00 ) only add 8 days of waste and fraud .

rhhardin said...

Hitting yourself with a hammer is low priority too.

Tim said...

Yet, when reviewing the list, the Obama voters very clearly emphasize social welfare goods (health care, Social Security/Medicare, public schools, along with jobs and gov't corruption); they aren't smart enough to figure out, yet (probably never) the more they demand of the public sector, the fewer jobs there will be, and the higher the taxes must eventually be.

So the poll confirms, if anything, that Obama voters can't think straight.

Duh.

Jay said...

Re-electing Obama (51% to 39% Republican advantage in voter enthusiasm) is a low priority for Obama voters.

Holmes said...

Which is why we're seeing hard-hitting ads featuring Romney's singing and his personal finances. (Tony Rezko, cough, cough).

Colonel Angus said...

If reducing the deficit is a priority, it won't be done without raising taxes across the board, not just among the wealthy along with substantial spending cuts and committed budget controls. I would suggest lowering overall rates and broadening the tax base. We need more than 50% of wage earners contributing to the country's revenue. The current system is unsustainable.

The nation has been spending money like a spoiled sweet sixteen birthday girl and time to pay the piper is nigh.

TosaGuy said...

Speaking as a median income guy, I've come to the conclusion that government's problem is not that the American people do not pay enough in taxes.

However, I could perhaps be persuaded to pay more taxes under these two conditions

1) Gov't actually gets cut in real dollars and a real, as opposed to accounting gimmick, surplus occurs.

2) All rssulting surpluses and tax hikes go to pay down debt.

Until that happens all we are doing is giving tha addict more crack.

TWM said...

If this is true, then is only reinforces the ever growing evidence that Obama and his gang are really in trouble. They got nothing to campaign on if not class warfare. Gay marriage? Feel-good plank but doesn't get them one vote they don't already have. Abortion? A non-issue this time. Frightening people about social services? Might work a bit, but jobs is THE issue and telling people they can get handouts instead of jobs is not going to win this election. And Obama had no clue how work a job much less create one.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gk1 said...

Well here's an interesting question. Why did the obama crowd push this for the last 6 months? Did they see something in the polls or surveys that made them think this was a winning issue? Or was it just their blind, liberal, ideology at work? As they are on their way to a merciless ass kicking, I think campaign flacks will use this as a text book case of what NOT to do on a campaign.

prairie wind said...

However, I could perhaps be persuaded to pay more taxes under these two conditions

1) Gov't actually gets cut in real dollars and a real, as opposed to accounting gimmick, surplus occurs.

2) All rssulting surpluses and tax hikes go to pay down debt.

Until that happens all we are doing is giving tha addict more crack.


You need a third condition: The tax increase will be repealed after the debt reaches a defined point.

It's a dreamworld.

Pogo said...

I think Obama should compare Romney to Hitler and bring out the vuvuzelas and drums.

It worked great in Wisconsin.

Kovacs said...

Also nonstarters with the Romney base: affordable healthcare, decent public schools, environmental stewardship, higher education, viable Social Security....

traditionalguy said...

Raising taxes on the middleclass over 200k annual net income is a division issue proposed to weaken the GOP. In truth it only funds a few days of current spending.

But the lie that it must be GOP House members who are the ones shutting down the USA military financing to favor the rich is too good for Obama to let it go. That will remain Big Lie #1 through to the end.

Chip Ahoy said...

TosaGuy, what you said sounds good but I do not think that can happen. Every deal you make in good faith is used against you in bad faith. I am coming around to thinking that if you honestly want government to shrink, to be a less intrusive, less important thing in our lives, then it must be grabbed by the throat and strangled.

That sounds bad.

I watched a few Groenendale videos a few days ago, one was a mature Belgian socializing a younger lab, they romped, they ran, they played the game of chase, they sniffed, they positioned for superior sniffing, then the Belgian grabbed the lab by the throat and pinned it to the ground until it submitted. Then they got up again.

The most important lesson a dog shows another dog. Mommy dogs do this to each pup.

I did it to all my dogs. It's what made me king of our little pack, and boy, did they ever listen. It's a dog thing. It's a government thing too.

edutcher said...

This is why Willie is getting a featured role at the convention.

They don't even appeal to their own base.

Issob Morocco said...

So when will Obama discover this? Nov. 7th?

Geoff Matthews said...

Colonel Angus & TosaGuy both make good points. If we're serious about reducing the federal debt, that means more of us will be paying taxes, and more of us will be paying more in taxes.
My complaint about that now is the lack of commitment in paying off the federal debt. If I thought DC were serious about it, I'd be more open to paying higher taxes.

TosaGuy said...

"TosaGuy, what you said sounds good but I do not think that can happen. Every deal you make in good faith is used against you in bad faith."

Yes, I admit I am guilty today of daydreaming at the keyboard.

Also, Prairie Wind's point about a sunset clause is also well taken.

Colonel Angus said...

My complaint about that now is the lack of commitment in paying off the federal debt. If I thought DC were serious about it, I'd be more open to paying higher taxes.

This is why before there is any discussion of raising taxes, Congress must commit to strict budgetary controls as well as substantive across the board spending cuts. They need to demonstrate a seriousness to tackling the debt and deficit before they are entrusted with taking more of our earnings.

Tibore said...

"Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy Is Lowest Priority Issue, Even Among Obama Voters."

Probably because they see it for the agitprop rhetoric that it really is?

Ken said...

Colonel,

If reducing the deficit is a priority, it won't be done without raising taxes across the board, not just among the wealthy along with substantial spending cuts and committed budget controls.

I don't think this is true. If the deficit is a priority, reducing spending is far more effective.

I do agree with your statement that rates should be lower and the tax based broadened to 100% of all earners. The tax base should not only be 50% of earners.

TosaGuy said...

""Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy Is Lowest Priority Issue, Even Among Obama Voters."

Also, if you are not currently paying income taxes, the concept of raising taxes on those who are naturally would not be a priority. It's an alien concept that while you might agree with, it won't be your priority issue.

Your priority is ensuring that the goodies keep coming your way....you really don't care who pays for it.

Ken said...

Kovacs,

affordable healthcare

Health care is affordable. The problem is the demand by everyone for ALL health care services, which of course isn't affordable. It's like demanding affordable cars, when what you mean is BMW 5 series for everyone.

decent public schools

Why public schools? Private schools do better at a better price.

environmental stewardship

The private sector is far better at this that the government.

higher education

See above under public education.

viable Social Security

Viable wealth transfers from the poor to the rich (those over 65 are 47 TIMES wealthier than those under 35)? This is what you think is an appropriate function of the government?

Thorley Winston said...

If reducing the deficit is a priority, it won't be done without raising taxes across the board, not just among the wealthy along with substantial spending cuts and committed budget controls. I would suggest lowering overall rates and broadening the tax base. We need more than 50% of wage earners contributing to the country's revenue. The current system is unsustainable.

Agreed, I also think we also need to get rid of a lot of deductions and exemptions that are built into the tax code (which are the real source of the complexity). Romney to his credit has proposed getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction for second homes for high income earners but I think we should phase the mortgage interest deduction out entirely. Pick a date and any new mortgages entered after that date (including increasing the principal on existing ones) will not be eligible for the MID so that we get rid of one of the largest tax expenditures and the economic distortion that has led to over-investment in real estate.

I’d also make any sort of tax reform that leads to an increase in revenue contingent on balancing the budget through spending cuts and using any additional revenues for paying down the existing debt.

Jay said...

Kovacs said...
Also nonstarters with the Romney base: affordable healthcare, decent public schools, environmental stewardship, higher education, viable Social Security....


It is beyond comical you think the government can give anyone "viable Social Security" given that the government has already tried and failed.

Marshal said...

"Colonel Angus said...
This is why before there is any discussion of raising taxes, Congress must commit to strict budgetary controls as well as substantive across the board spending cuts."

This is exactly right. Just as immigration must be enforcement first, the deficit approach has to be spending cuts first. First because spending has vastly increased over the past two decades, but also because Democrats goal is to make the tax increase the new normal and spend that too. Then they'll cry the next deficit "solution" has to "balanced", even though spending has increased.

That's my problem with the Bush tax cuts in the first place. Every time there's a change we end up with more special interest disruption. In order to get the cuts through Bush had to arrange "benefits" for people who didn't pay tax, to keep it "balanced". When we repeal those cuts the special interest giveaways stay, and then we do it again. Every thrashing movement has the net result of additional redistribution. Compare to how a python constricts: every movement hastens the end. That's how machine politics works.

Tim said...

en said...

"Colonel,

If reducing the deficit is a priority, it won't be done without raising taxes across the board, not just among the wealthy along with substantial spending cuts and committed budget controls.

I don't think this is true. If the deficit is a priority, reducing spending is far more effective.

I do agree with your statement that rates should be lower and the tax based broadened to 100% of all earners. The tax base should not only be 50% of earners.


Yes.

Spending, not revenues, is the real problem. Sadly, spending is worst in Social Security and Medicare - most especially Medicare.

There will be no long-term, sustainable fix for this problem until we curtail spending.

Republicans aren't great on spending, but the Democrats are far, far worse.

If there is any "grand deal" out there, it will not, cannot, happen until there are honest-to-God, real, substantial spending cuts, especially in Social Security and Medicare. They are cannibalizing America's future.

MayBee said...

The mortgage interest deduction is the one deduction- in the midst of all these other programs- that actually rewards people for paying their mortgages even if they are underwater.

Get rid of that, and the home value will drop an equivalent amount, thus further boxing in people who have been responsible homeowners.

edutcher said...

Kovacs said...

Also nonstarters with the Romney base: affordable healthcare,

Which we had until Pelosi Galore screwed it up. We're currently looking at increasing numbers of uninsured under ObamaTax.

PS If by "affordable", the Lefties mean care that isn't over-inflated, that lets the Feds out. ObamaTax's projected cost is not 1.7T.

decent public schools,

Ones that teach algebra? Ones where the kids learn history, science, and literature? Ones where they don't have to be concerned about being sexually molested by the teachers?

The more money thrown at schools (teacher unions, really), the worse the education.

Get rid of the teacher unions and return control of the schools to the districts.

environmental stewardship,

EPA ruling to pleasing the enviro-nuts?

higher education,

Something to be earned, not given

viable Social Security....

Then privatize it and get the government's hand out of it.

Marshal said...

"MayBee said...
The mortgage interest deduction is the one deduction- in the midst of all these other programs- that actually rewards people for paying their mortgages even if they are underwater.

Get rid of that, and the home value will drop an equivalent amount, thus further boxing in people who have been responsible homeowners."

Anything effecting mortgage interest has to have a very long lead in. Like capping the deduction at a fairly high level, but not indexing it for inflation.

MadisonMan said...

Congress must commit to strict budgetary controls as well as substantive across the board spending cuts. They need to demonstrate a seriousness to tackling the debt and deficit before they are entrusted with taking more of our earnings.

It's not just spending cuts. It's reducing the size of the Govt that is a necessity. Reduce the size of the Govt and the spending cuts will be easier to find.

I am not optimistic that it will happen. Bureacrats exist to maintain their jobs, after all.

MayBee said...

Anything effecting mortgage interest has to have a very long lead in. Like capping the deduction at a fairly high level, but not indexing it for inflation.

It is currently capped at a million. I'm not sure if that amount is indexed for inflation, but it is not indexed for areas with high costs of living/housing.

La Pasionaria said...

The debate over tax hikes for the wealthy really is a farce. American citizens as a whole will have to pay a lot more taxes if we want to get rid of the deficit and thoroughly modernize our public infrastructure.

But this will hardly happen if the liberatrian anti-government zeitgeist prevails.

Holmes said...

La Pasionaria- look, I'm sorry the pro government people spent the money on crap instead of important stuff. But that was a feature not a bug for them.

MayBee said...

Honest, the next trillion they spend will be spent on modernizing the infrastructure.

Just as soon as they finish building California's new rail line.

Marshal said...

"thoroughly modernize our public infrastructure."

If you believe the left government spending is always for roads, teachers, and police. But somehow it always finds its way to lawyers, business cronies, and political activists.

Joe said...

thoroughly modernize our public infrastructure.

Including, I presume, bridges to nowhere and airports serving few passengers.

In case my point isn't clear; given the money, politicians of all stripes will find and/or invent all sorts of "critical" infrastructure on which to spend it.

bagoh20 said...

So all you need to do is imagine that what's important to each group is pursued at the expense of what the other group wants, and then decide who to vote for.

There are areas of agreement like jobs, but in the areas of major disagreement the left's priorities mostly involve spending more federal money, while the rights' involve reducing it.

A Simple choice.

prairie wind said...

But this will hardly happen if the liberatrian anti-government zeitgeist prevails.

This is exciting news. We have a libertarian anti-government zeitgeist! FINALLY!

Now we're getting somewhere.

Darrell said...

Give me a $Million per year and set my tax rate at 90%.

I'll muddle through.

Marshal said...

prairie wind said...
But this will hardly happen if the liberatrian anti-government zeitgeist prevails.

This is exciting news. We have a libertarian anti-government zeitgeist! FINALLY!

Now we're getting somewhere.
____________________________

6 trillion in debt. Clearly our biggest concern is the strange hold libertarians have on government. Maybe we should spend another trillion just to break out of this stranglehold.

La Pasionaria said...

Marshal said...
6 trillion in debt. Clearly our biggest concern is the strange hold libertarians have on government. Maybe we should spend another trillion just to break out of this stranglehold.


Well, maybe its really unfair to drag all libertarians into this. I meant the anti-tax brigades who refused to raise sufficient taxes to cover for our expenditures. And these people certainly bear responsibility for the 6 trillion you mentioned.

EMD said...

ho refused to raise sufficient taxes to cover for our expenditures.

What part of cut the fucking expenditures do you not understand?

Marshal said...

"La Pasionaria said...
Well, maybe its really unfair to drag all libertarians into this. I meant the anti-tax brigades who refused to raise sufficient taxes to cover for our expenditures."

Interesting you hide behind vagaries. First you refer to "infrastructure", and then switch to expenditures as if they are synonyms. If you’re interested in saving infrastructure why aren’t you fighting against lower budget priorities so we can spend on your infrastructure?

La Pasionaria said...

EMD said...

What part of cut the fucking expenditures do you not understand?


I understand very well, but I do not agree. Im in favour of government spending, but high taxation as well. I dont wanna rely on debt.

Shouldnt you pose your question to those who proclaim to stand for lower taxes and didnt lift a finger to adjust the size of government spending accordingly? Republicans 2000-2006 for example? Or Mr-Fiscal-Responsibility Paul Ryan?

Ken said...

MadisonMan,

I am not optimistic that it will happen. Bureacrats exist to maintain their jobs, after all.

Not too mention that old people are the most powerful voting block and the largest pieces of the budgetary pie lines their pocket. And since no one seems to be aware that old people represent the richest portion of the US population, people buy, hook, line, and sinker that old people need the gov to take from their much poorer children to give to old people.

Ken said...

La Pasionaria,

I meant the anti-tax brigades who refused to raise sufficient taxes to cover for our expenditures.

Right, because as we all know it's low tax revenues that's driving debt and deficits. Please ignore the fact that government spending has shot up by 31% since 2007 and 223% since 2000:

2012: $3,796,000,000,000
2007: $2,900,000,000,000
2000: $1,700,000,000,000

You're living in a fairy tale world if you think that low tax revenue is driving federal debt and deficits. Additionally, you don't understand taxes if you think tax rates are the same as taxes

Alex said...

2012: $3,796,000,000,000
2007: $2,900,000,000,000
2000: $1,700,000,000,000


Libruls can't do basic math.

MayBee said...

To be clear, the million is the value of the mortgage (a debt), not the income level.

Michael The Magnificent said...

The problem isn't taxpayers not paying enough.

The problem is too few tax payers.

When half of tax filers pay NOTHING in taxes, how is it that assholes like Tammy Baldwin can go on and on about making the rich pay "their fair share"?

You want people to pay their fair share? Then go after the half of the population that doesn't pay a dime towards their fair share. It's time for the "free" ride, at other's expense, to come to an abrupt and painful end.