Tax the Rich, Take Your Hands Off Medicare: US Majority

Jeanwah

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/28-3

Published on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 by Common Dreams
Tax the Rich, Take Your Hands Off Medicare: Overwhelming US Majority
- Common Dreams staff

A large majority of US citizens would like to see higher taxes on the rich and oppose cuts to Medicare as an answer to the US deficit, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Washington Post and ABC News.

Roughly sixty percent of those asked stated that they would like to see higher income taxes on those in higher income brackets -- $250,000 and greater.

Only 37 percent opposed a progressive tax system.

Those who answered with “strong” support for raising taxes on the rich were roughly double the number with "strong" opposition: 42 percent for vs. 23 percent against.

Seventy-three percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents support higher taxes on the rich. 59 percent of Republicans oppose it.

Additionally two-thirds of Americans oppose a raise in Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as is proposed by many Republican lawmakers. Only 30 percent support it.

According to the Huffington Post, these numbers remain consistent with polls taken throughout the year. On Nov. 6, the same percentage of Americans sided with higher taxes on the wealthy, as well with a similar poll earlier in the year.

The poll arrives as lawmakers debate this week over next year's budget plan -- negotiating over public spending and taxation options. As politicians, along with corporate media outlets, raise fears over the so called "fiscal cliff," or sequestration that will occur if opposing forces don't make a "grand bargain," which could include potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security, the solutions provided by these national polls make clear what the majority of the American public would like to see happen instead.

aerial

Jeanwah wrote:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/28-3

Published on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 by Common Dreams
Tax the Rich, Take Your Hands Off Medicare: Overwhelming US Majority
- Common Dreams staff

A large majority of US citizens would like to see higher taxes on the rich and oppose cuts to Medicare as an answer to the US deficit, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Washington Post and ABC News.

Roughly sixty percent of those asked stated that they would like to see higher income taxes on those in higher income brackets -- $250,000 and greater.

Only 37 percent opposed a progressive tax system.



Those who answered with “strong” support for raising taxes on the rich were roughly double the number with "strong" opposition: 42 percent for vs. 23 percent against.

Seventy-three percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents support higher taxes on the rich. 59 percent of Republicans oppose it.

Additionally two-thirds of Americans oppose a raise in Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as is proposed by many Republican lawmakers. Only 30 percent support it.

According to the Huffington Post, these numbers remain consistent with polls taken throughout the year. On Nov. 6, the same percentage of Americans sided with higher taxes on the wealthy, as well with a similar poll earlier in the year.

The poll arrives as lawmakers debate this week over next year's budget plan -- negotiating over public spending and taxation options. As politicians, along with corporate media outlets, raise fears over the so called "fiscal cliff," or sequestration that will occur if opposing forces don't make a "grand bargain," which could include potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security, the solutions provided by these national polls make clear what the majority of the American public would like to see happen instead.

I would like to see cuts to congress....some one had a good idea on another sight. Any other income they have the amount of that income would be subtracted from there government pay check, or if they fail they get FIRED. There are plenty of others that would want the job only to help this country. They are Public Servants and they should be reminded of that!

Cosmo

aerial wrote:

I would like to see cuts to congress....some one had a good idea on another sight. Any other income they have the amount of that income would be subtracted from there government pay check, or if they fail they get FIRED. There are plenty of others that would want the job only to help this country. They are Public Servants and they should be reminded of that!

...
Um... you know... YOU can fire them. It's called, 'A Ballot'.
But, as long as American public continues to re-hire these people whom the American Public is giving a 20% approval rating... nothing is going to change and we will continue to get the government we ask for... and therefore, deserve.
...
Now... cutting congressional pay will be a cup of piss in an ocean of urine. Where else would you cut... i remind you... the heavy hitters in the line-up are Social Security, Medicare and Defense.

brianlux

I'm a 60 percenter.

Cosmo

brianlux wrote:

I'm a 60 percenter.

...
I figure... based upon my current salary and the rate of my annual bonuses... I won't hit the $250,000.00 income range til about 2067. I'll be 111 years old and hopefully, retired by then.

catefrances

Cosmo wrote:

brianlux wrote:

I'm a 60 percenter.

...
I figure... based upon my current salary and the rate of my annual bonuses... I won't hit the $250,000.00 income range til about 2067. I'll be 111 years old and hopefully, retired by then.

brianlux

Cosmo wrote:

brianlux wrote:

I'm a 60 percenter.

...
I figure... based upon my current salary and the rate of my annual bonuses... I won't hit the $250,000.00 income range til about 2067. I'll be 111 years old and hopefully, retired by then.

I'll hit that figure sometime around the summer of 2150.

No, I mean 60 percenter as in: "Roughly sixty percent of those asked stated that they would like to see higher income taxes on those in higher income brackets -- $250,000 and greater."

Dirtie_Frank

I think $250, 000 is a low number to be considered wealthy. Are they well off yes, but someone making 250K in YC, DC or LA is not the same as someone making it in Boise, Des Moines, etc...

brianlux

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

I think $250, 000 is a low number to be considered wealthy. Are they well off yes, but someone making 250K in YC, DC or LA is not the same as someone making it in Boise, Des Moines, etc...

That's an excellent point and maybe regional cost of living could be taken into account- which of course would complicate the issue quite a bit. Maybe a formula factoring in local cost of living would make sense except that somebody is going to say, ok, since the post office now allows the post office street address to be used to receive parcels I'm, guessing it could also be used to establish residency and people making a lot of money will just have a second address in a poorer neighborhood. Or they'll find some other loop hole. Or their financial adviser- one of those luxuries most of us can't afford- will do that for them. I don't see things changing anytime too soon.

riotgrl

brianlux wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

I think $250, 000 is a low number to be considered wealthy. Are they well off yes, but someone making 250K in YC, DC or LA is not the same as someone making it in Boise, Des Moines, etc...

That's an excellent point and maybe regional cost of living could be taken into account- which of course would complicate the issue quite a bit. Maybe a formula factoring in local cost of living would make sense except that somebody is going to say, ok, since the post office now allows the post office street address to be used to receive parcels I'm, guessing it could also be used to establish residency and people making a lot of money will just have a second address in a poorer neighborhood. Or they'll find some other loop hole. Or their financial adviser- one of those luxuries most of us can't afford- will do that for them. I don't see things changing anytime too soon.

Maybe they aren't wealthy if they live in DC or LA but they're not destitute either. And my undestanding of this issue is that it would only increase the taxes on the amount they make beyond $250,000. So the utlimate tax would only amount to a couple of thousand dollars. Is that really going to hurt someone or keep them from hiring another employee? An overhaul of the entire tax code is really in order to close loopholes and to simplify our tax system.

EdsonNascimento

$90 Billion in tax revenue with no cuts does nothing. And everyone here knows that money will get spent, too.

This is purely punitive. We need an overall solution that includes increased revenue and spending cuts. Without the latter, the former is useless. All you're doing is making people feel good. Which is all this poll proves.

Funny that Obama now says - let's complete the class warfare on the rich now, and I promise, we'll talk about spending cuts later. :roll: Yeah. Like that will ever happen.

I think if there's no comprehensive solution including spending cuts, we should go off the "cliff" instead of just pandering to the masses.

This is the best idea I've heard though - Republicans should offer up CUTS to the middle 2 tax brackets ("middle class") and let Obama respond to that.

riotgrl

EdsonNascimento wrote:

$90 Billion in tax revenue with no cuts does nothing. And everyone here knows that money will get spent, too.

This is purely punitive. We need an overall solution that includes increased revenue and spending cuts. Without the latter, the former is useless. All you're doing is making people feel good. Which is all this poll proves.

Funny that Obama now says - let's complete the class warfare on the rich now, and I promise, we'll talk about spending cuts later. :roll: Yeah. Like that will ever happen.

I think if there's no comprehensive solution including spending cuts, we should go off the "cliff" instead of just pandering to the masses.

This is the best idea I've heard though - Republicans should offer up CUTS to the middle 2 tax brackets ("middle class") and let Obama respond to that.

You do need both increased revenue and spending cuts. But why completely cut welfare programs in a slash across the board method? Clinton had a great program that provided education and/or job skill traning to move people off welfare within 3 years, I believe. Why not TRULY reform welfare that way the rolls could be reduced for the long term? If we educate and train the poverty stricken then they will value education/job training and will teach that to their kids so we end the cycle of poverty through a long term solution. Just cutting spending on these programs only panders to the Republicans to make them "feel good" about increasing revenue through taxes, either tax increase or closing loopholes. Perhaps that's the conversation we should be having in Congress. I never could figure out why Bush felt it was a good idea to drop that program :fp:

Indifference

Isn't just logical that a majority of people would support tax increases as long as it doesn't impact them!

EdsonNascimento

riotgrl wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

$90 Billion in tax revenue with no cuts does nothing. And everyone here knows that money will get spent, too.

This is purely punitive. We need an overall solution that includes increased revenue and spending cuts. Without the latter, the former is useless. All you're doing is making people feel good. Which is all this poll proves.

Funny that Obama now says - let's complete the class warfare on the rich now, and I promise, we'll talk about spending cuts later. :roll: Yeah. Like that will ever happen.

I think if there's no comprehensive solution including spending cuts, we should go off the "cliff" instead of just pandering to the masses.

This is the best idea I've heard though - Republicans should offer up CUTS to the middle 2 tax brackets ("middle class") and let Obama respond to that.

You do need both increased revenue and spending cuts. But why completely cut welfare programs in a slash across the board method? Clinton had a great program that provided education and/or job skill traning to move people off welfare within 3 years, I believe. Why not TRULY reform welfare that way the rolls could be reduced for the long term? If we educate and train the poverty stricken then they will value education/job training and will teach that to their kids so we end the cycle of poverty through a long term solution. Just cutting spending on these programs only panders to the Republicans to make them "feel good" about increasing revenue through taxes, either tax increase or closing loopholes. Perhaps that's the conversation we should be having in Congress. I never could figure out why Bush felt it was a good idea to drop that program :fp:

Who said anything about willy-nilly cuts? I love how tax the rich folks like to turn the discussion.

And that program really didn't work. But, that's an entirely other argument. The best way to get people back to work is to have work for them to have and not create a dependency (again - to save the spin - I am not saying EVERYONE is lazy, or that we don't need a safety net, or whatever you like to spin this as. But, Giuliani proved in NYC that you CAN get folks off welfare by disincentivizing that way of life - which his predecessor David Dinkins thought impossible - Dinkins espoused - you have to expand the "safety net" because these poor people couldn't help themselves.).

If you expand the tax base, as opposed to the welfare base, things work better.

gimmesometruth27

isn't it just like our elected officials to do what the people want them to do?

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

isn't it just like our elected officials to do what the people want them to do?

Yep. So, you don't think part of the result of this poll is what Indifference mentioned above?

Though, it is part of the reason Obama won - class warfare against the smallest class. It's easy to pander to the masses. It's what many despots do. It's harder to do what is actually right. Unfortunately, by the time the masses realize wtf is going on, it's too late. Fortunately, for us, we have a governmental set up that allows for resistance. The framers look more genius every day. Don't they?

dancepartner

This thread began with polls saying what WE want. Then, we question if anyone in Washington listens to what WE want. Then, we agree we need a comprehensive approach which includes an overhaul on our tax code (I use a reference of over 5000 pages) but I keep reading about just how tricky it is to put real numbers to. Washington Post says 70,000 pages and the absurd numbers quoted just go higher. I say that even at 5000, how many of us even use 100?
Here's my question: how do you guys think (other than splatting ourselves off the cliff) that WE can effect real change?

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

isn't it just like our elected officials to do what the people want them to do?

Yep. So, you don't think part of the result of this poll is what Indifference mentioned above?

Though, it is part of the reason Obama won - class warfare against the smallest class. It's easy to pander to the masses. It's what many despots do. It's harder to do what is actually right. Unfortunately, by the time the masses realize wtf is going on, it's too late. Fortunately, for us, we have a governmental set up that allows for resistance. The framers look more genius every day. Don't they?

class warfare

just like a republican to want taxes to raise on 98% of the population just to protect the top 2%. who is waging class warfare and holding tax cuts hostage again?

you can not reduce a deficit by cutting spending alone. simple math dictates that.

gimmesometruth27

if the super rich top 2% are so concerned about their taxes going up, then why did they overwhelmingly support obama in the election a few weeks ago?

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

isn't it just like our elected officials to do what the people want them to do?

Yep. So, you don't think part of the result of this poll is what Indifference mentioned above?

Though, it is part of the reason Obama won - class warfare against the smallest class. It's easy to pander to the masses. It's what many despots do. It's harder to do what is actually right. Unfortunately, by the time the masses realize wtf is going on, it's too late. Fortunately, for us, we have a governmental set up that allows for resistance. The framers look more genius every day. Don't they?

class warfare

just like a republican to want taxes to raise on 98% of the population just to protect the top 2%. who is waging class warfare and holding tax cuts hostage again?

you can not reduce a deficit by cutting spending alone. simple math dictates that.

Where did I say that? The fact is, OBama has already raised taxes on the Middle Class via Obamacare (see the indirect "taxes" - Jimmy John's is being lauded for not specifically naming the tax on their bill like Papa John's. Yet, how is that owner going to turn a $500,000 expense that will turn profitable location to non-profitable? Raise prices - there's the additional hidden tax. Do you think Romney is eating at Jimmy John's).

Again - $90 Billion does nothing. What's the point of that? I'm not against increased revenue. But, I am against indiscrimant taxation just to garner favor with the public. Do what is right. Get folks back to work, so the base is larger. That will increase revenue 10 times faster than picking a segment of the population and pointing fingers.

Simple math also dictates that taxing the so called "rich" (I am not talking about the Warren Buffets here) does nothing either.

We SPEND too much as individuals. We SPEND too much as a collective. That needs to stop, or there's not enough tax dollars in the world to fix the problem.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if the super rich top 2% are so concerned about their taxes going up, then why did they overwhelmingly support obama in the election a few weeks ago?

What years were tax revenues the highest?

2006, 2007 and 2008 are still the title holders.

Who was President?

What were the tax rates?

What was (true) unemployment?

What was the deficit?

Spending and (true) unemployment are the problems. Not revenues.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And that program really didn't work. But, that's an entirely other argument. The best way to get people back to work is to have work for them to have and not create a dependency (again - to save the spin - I am not saying EVERYONE is lazy, or that we don't need a safety net, or whatever you like to spin this as. But, Giuliani proved in NYC that you CAN get folks off welfare by disincentivizing that way of life - which his predecessor David Dinkins thought impossible - Dinkins espoused - you have to expand the "safety net" because these poor people couldn't help themselves.).

You reference Giuliani getting people off welfare every so often, and I know it's off topic, but all Giuliani did was raise thresholds and requirements in order for people to receive public assistance. So yes, this did reduce the number of people on welfare, but it didn't reduce the number of people in poverty. You're assuming that his disincentivizing "that way of life" meant that the people who no longer received public assistance were then working decent jobs.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And that program really didn't work. But, that's an entirely other argument. The best way to get people back to work is to have work for them to have and not create a dependency (again - to save the spin - I am not saying EVERYONE is lazy, or that we don't need a safety net, or whatever you like to spin this as. But, Giuliani proved in NYC that you CAN get folks off welfare by disincentivizing that way of life - which his predecessor David Dinkins thought impossible - Dinkins espoused - you have to expand the "safety net" because these poor people couldn't help themselves.).

You reference Giuliani getting people off welfare every so often, and I know it's off topic, but all Giuliani did was raise thresholds and requirements in order for people to receive public assistance. So yes, this did reduce the number of people on welfare, but it didn't reduce the number of people in poverty. You're assuming that his disincentivizing "that way of life" meant that the people who no longer received public assistance were then working decent jobs.

First, that wasn't all he did, but yes, he did do that as part of his successful plan. You are right - not EVERYONE got jobs. But, job holders did INCREASE (I won't say from this, as nothing is ever that simple). Are there folks that "fell through the cracks?" I'm sure there were, and then programs were created to patch that. But, from every perspective, the economy in NYC improved DRAMATICALLY under Giuliani based on the theory of teaching to fish instead of giving the fish. (and crime when down, and revenues went up without increasing taxes - as a matter of fact - he gave MORE tax breaks to "Disneyfy Time Square," for example, and quality of life increased). It was an amazing turn around if you grew up with a city that folks were reluctant to visit.

mikepegg44

it is possible to raise revenue without raising taxes. Policy and regulations that support entrepreneurial capitalism will do more to raise revenue in a sustaining way than simply raising rates on those that will pay slightly less of the cost of those taxes to an account to figure out how not to pay the increased rate.

I have said it before and I will say it again, if you DOUBLE tax revenue in 2011 (total individual taxes = ~1.05 trillion; deficit = 1.3 trillion.) you don't erase the deficit. So how is raising taxes on people who make up a small percentage of that revenue going to do anything but piss in the ocean. This means that you can literally raise tax burdens 100% on every american and you would still be running a deficit.

these percentage points are unnecessary to discuss until the theory behind deficit spending is discussed and the process eradicated for reasons other than national emergency (don't really like it then but would make that sacrifice for sure)...

in isn't a never ending well...eventually our time at the top will come to an end and we can be prepared for it with a paired down sensible government or we can come crashing to a halt and have riots in the streets. All empires come to an end, the days of the dollar being the world's reserve currency are numbered and we need to start acting like it.

pandora

Make budget cuts the same across the board...
then lower taxes on those under 250,000 so more take home pay comes back to
the economy and charity.
250,000 to one million they are not wealthy
they hard working educated professionals do not raise tax.

As far as filthy rich they should pay as others do in the bracket below them
I am assuming from the hub bub they are not.

And stop taxing business ...
encourage business it is the bread and butter of our country

EdsonNascimento

pandora wrote:

Make budget cuts the same across the board...
then lower taxes on those under 250,000 so more take home pay comes back to
the economy and charity.
250,000 to one million they are not wealthy
they hard working educated professionals do not raise tax.

As far as filthy rich they should pay as others do in the bracket below them
I am assuming from the hub bub they are not.

And stop taxing business ...
encourage business it is the bread and butter of our country

While I don't agree with everything (I don't think you can completely stop taxing businesses, but I get your idea), overall this makes a hell of a lot more sense as a starting point than "I'm digging my heels in until you tax those "rich" bastards and YOU'RE the problem if you don't do as I say."

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if the super rich top 2% are so concerned about their taxes going up, then why did they overwhelmingly support obama in the election a few weeks ago?

What years were tax revenues the highest?

2006, 2007 and 2008 are still the title holders.

Who was President?

What were the tax rates?

What was (true) unemployment?

What was the deficit?

Spending and (true) unemployment are the problems. Not revenues.

the question remains. if they are so concerned about their taxes going up, why did the rich overwhelmingly vote for obama and reject romney?

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the question remains. if they are so concerned about their taxes going up, why did the rich overwhelmingly vote for obama and reject romney?

Because really rich people know that the government will give it right back to them no matter who is in office in contracts and grants the extremely rich won't be affected by a raise in Income tax percentages.

Sometimes people don't vote on one issue, like taxes. Seems to go against the idea that the top 1% is evil and is set out to take advantage of the system though doesn't it? And as you say, people vote against their best interest all the time

In all seriousness I don't think taxes were a deciding factor for people, as much as the 1% gets demonized, I don't think they are as focused on only money as some think. i think it was trust, people don't trust the GOP as far as they can throw it.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if the super rich top 2% are so concerned about their taxes going up, then why did they overwhelmingly support obama in the election a few weeks ago?

What years were tax revenues the highest?

2006, 2007 and 2008 are still the title holders.

Who was President?

What were the tax rates?

What was (true) unemployment?

What was the deficit?

Spending and (true) unemployment are the problems. Not revenues.

the question remains. if they are so concerned about their taxes going up, why did the rich overwhelmingly vote for obama and reject romney?

So, now that Mike nailed your question, what say you? Still think pissing in the Ocean is a solution? Obama is in over his head and thinks that taking to Twitter and other such lowest common denominator sort of places, he will win the war. Unfortunately, if he wins, we all lose. Talk about voting against your own interests....

know1

Jeanwah wrote:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/28-3

Published on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 by Common Dreams
Tax the Rich, Take Your Hands Off Medicare: Overwhelming US Majority
- Common Dreams staff

A large majority of US citizens would like to see higher taxes on the rich and oppose cuts to Medicare as an answer to the US deficit, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Washington Post and ABC News.

Roughly sixty percent of those asked stated that they would like to see higher income taxes on those in higher income brackets -- $250,000 and greater.

Only 37 percent opposed a progressive tax system.

Those who answered with “strong” support for raising taxes on the rich were roughly double the number with "strong" opposition: 42 percent for vs. 23 percent against.

Seventy-three percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents support higher taxes on the rich. 59 percent of Republicans oppose it.

Additionally two-thirds of Americans oppose a raise in Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as is proposed by many Republican lawmakers. Only 30 percent support it.

According to the Huffington Post, these numbers remain consistent with polls taken throughout the year. On Nov. 6, the same percentage of Americans sided with higher taxes on the wealthy, as well with a similar poll earlier in the year.

The poll arrives as lawmakers debate this week over next year's budget plan -- negotiating over public spending and taxation options. As politicians, along with corporate media outlets, raise fears over the so called "fiscal cliff," or sequestration that will occur if opposing forces don't make a "grand bargain," which could include potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security, the solutions provided by these national polls make clear what the majority of the American public would like to see happen instead.

We already have higher taxes on the rich.

As usual, this is worded in a very careful manner. Is it actually asking if people favor a progressive tax system or not? That's different than wanting to raise taxes further on the rich.

Jason P

Military, Social Security, Medicare / Medicade ... 80% of our budget. No one wants to cut them.

I wonder where I will move to when the Austerity measures start in around 15 years?

:think: