Most Americans Support Letting Bush Tax Cuts Expire
How many times have we featured some Republican politician or pundit saying that extending the Bush tax cuts is the answer to all our economic woes? Turns out, the American people really aren't buying the biggest gun in the Republican armory:
A majority of Americans favor letting the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire for the wealthy. While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers.
These results are based on an Aug. 27-30 USA Today/Gallup poll. The fate of the 2001 and 2003 federal income tax cuts that were a centerpiece of Bush administration policy could be a significant campaign issue this fall. The tax cuts are set to expire after this year unless Congress votes to extend them. Congress plans to take up the issue next week when it returns to session.[..]
With about one in three Americans, including a minority of independents and Democrats, in favor of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, Democrats may not be putting themselves at great political risk by allowing the tax cuts to expire for wealthy Americans. In fact, the middle ground of extending tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans but allowing them to expire for wealthy Americans -- the Democrats' most likely proposal -- is the specific option the public prefers most.
Gallup has typically found Americans unsympathetic to the argument that upper-income Americans are overtaxed. They generally believe upper-income Americans pay too little in taxes and favor higher taxes on wealthy Americans as a means to fund government programs, such as Social Security.
I find much to be optimistic about this poll. And it's not the only one with these result, in fact, Greg Sargent lists five polls, all with similar results. In tough economic times, I think it's human nature to wish to hold on to every penny, and the Republicans have certainly been effective at obfuscating that this expiration applies only to the very wealthy among us and not to 95% of the American people. In fact, there's a credible argument to be made that the Republicans are so out of touch with what's happening with Americans right now that they think people who make $250,000/year are the middle class:
At a public forum hosted by the Chamber of Commerce in Crowley, Louisiana yesterday, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) attacked his Democratic opponent Charlie Melancon for saying people in the top income bracket should pay higher taxes. But in doing so he implied that "virtually everybody" in attendance would see their taxes raised.
"I hate to tell you, by Washington's definitions that [Melancon]'s using, virtually everybody in this audience is the wealthy."
That's a sentiment also echoed by John McCain, Dino Rossi in Washington and even Fox News mouthpieces.
The fact that few are falling in with the Republican be-all-end-all solution of tax cuts makes me wonder truly what kind of traction they have going into the mid-terms. And whether the Democratic Party realizes they have an issue that they are winning:
Amid a sea of bad polling news, here is an issue where the public is clearly on Dems' side. And the above polling suggests that the public already has a pretty firm grasp on the "nuance" of this debate. This, of all things, is not an issue where Dems should conclude in advance -- as they often do -- that once Republicans go on the attack, it's game over and Dems can't possibly win the argument.
Threads like this will make Boehner and McConnell cry. The result will be a massive orange puddle containing glops of Mitch's melting facial skin.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
I'd buy tickets to THAT!
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
I wonder if the Dems are trying to throw the midterms. They are clearly clueless, and have been for a long time, on how to fight the Republican thugs. While the Retards are clearly lost without good leadership, they have plenty of vitriol and bile to spew and they are using it. The Dems, on the other hand, have facts and history on their side but they don't know what to do with it. They are so wrapped up in a failing system that they don't know how to relate to the American people either.
Democracy is the road to socialism. ~ Karl Marx
Barry does not want to piss off the rich. Just ask the Wall St. crowd, they're happy thanks to Barry, but they want to be ecstatic. Big oil is happy too as well as Big Pharma, and Big Military. Barry is their man.
Please drive through 'Steve'.
You are a troll.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
. . . that are so eager to criticize Wall St., Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Military regardless of their feelings about Obama.
Just sayin' . . .
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Anyone that's willing to instill doubt and divide the Democrats is rewarding the Republicans.
Anyone that is rewarding the Republicans is mentally challenged or a troll.
that's what i'm sayin', and i'm sticking to it.
This is not the time to 'refine' our Democratic president.
This guy is offering straight up criticism. not help. Not helping.
After November, let the 'suggestions' roll, but criticism is rarely the way to go.
Also, there's nothing wrong with the name 'Barry', unless you are trying to say something while maintaining cover. So i conclude he is either really stupid, or a concern troll pretending to be a Democrat.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Everything Obama and the Democrats do is a win for the GOP:
I wish you were right.
But, hey, with corporate media cooperation, the following issues are "off the table" in the midterms.
The Ron Paul/Barney Frank overseas military base reduction to save $100B/year
Social Security reductions related to the deficit commission.
In the past the following was off the table, Bush impeachment for starting the $1 trillion war, Single payer, and the breakup of "too big to fail".
The Dems have had this policy of taking "off the table" any proposal that would save the average American money. Whether it's the public option, or big war, or the elimination of "too big to fail", the acquiescence to corporate lobbyists is just as apparent in the new administration as the old.
Since the Dems ran on "change you can believe in" and since there has been no change in votes in Congress procured through lobbying, the lack of enthusiasm is understandable.
I'm going to vote the Dem lever this November, but for one reason only, because to permit a Republican gain is to permit a gain in fascism. I view fascism as the number one threat, and the implementation is being justified by the number two threat, terrorism.
Both candidates for Senator in my neck of the woods are running on that the other is the greater of the two evils. There's no specificity on the issues. All of this is facilitated by the corporate media, that has been conducting these false dichotomies for quite a while.
I would advocate getting some of your news from abroad, and supporting "instant runoff", a process that would make 3rd party candidates more viable.
. . . when it comes to discussing ideas that the uberwealthy and powerful desire.
But when it comes to popular plans (like Medicare for All), they're "off the table" and cannot even be discussed because of the all-powerful filbuster.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
reconciliation to ram through?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
. . . is an excellent example, ricky. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to elaborate.
I have no idea what you were talking about with the utility closet, but you're spot on with HR 676. Nice work.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Silly me. You made a comment about sixty votes and benefits to the uberwealthy.
The only reference to the Medicare for All bill also referenced the filibuster. My comments, therefore stuck to the Senate.
The only bill I can remember which targeted benefits to the uberwealthy were the Bush tax cuts. That bill required reconciliation to pass the Senate because it did not have sixty votes.
It is too bad HR 676 did not come up for a vote. I am sure its 88 co-sponsore had rounded up
the other 130 votes they needed to get it passed in the House and we just did not find out because of a cover up. Oh? Did the sponsors or leadership blame the Senate for not having a vote? That is what they do in the Senate when they don't have the votes to pass something there. They blame the House for not bringing something up for a vote in the Senate.
Bicameralism. It is so convenient for sourcing blame elsewhere.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
You must have edited your comment before my reply went through. Funny how that happens.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Better Their Tax Cuts Expire Than Your Grannie...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I'm willing to let the tax cuts remain if all the Congressional GOPs agree to expire.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
support letting the tax cuts expire. Last year didn't most Americans pay nothing in federal income tax? And 40% or so got back more than they paid in? Of course a lot people would support something that will benefit them. Even if it negatively effects someone else.
Personally if there is going to be a income tax, I think it should be even across the board. Flat percentage with no deductions. It would negatively effect me but imo that is how it should be.
For last year's taxes, and because we bought a condo in November, my wife and I got the $6500 tax credit for first home buyers and a $3000 tax credit because we paid too much in taxes, which worked out well, we replaced the dishwasher, the stove, the fridge (which died) and the hot water heater. With what was left, we attacked our credit card debt. It's all gone now... The money, not the debt, but it was halved. :)
For paying too much? I've never heard of that one. A refund yes, a credit no.
And can you tell me why you should of gotten money from other people because you bought a home? Because that is what happened for a lot of people including from the sound of it you. I could possibly see a non-refundable credit for it, but not a refundable one. And that goes for all refundable tax credits.
When that is only one tax we pay. Try running those numbers with FICA included. Any problem with letting FICA run evenly across the board?
BTW, Federal income taxes are already even across the board: Everyone pays the same rate on every dollar they make over 250K.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Income tax is what is used to fund the Gov. and most of it's programs. FICA is supposed to be used to fund SS and Medicaid. And FICA is ran evenly across the board, everyone pays the same percentage up to the limit. But actually no it's not even, because people do not get SS evenly across the board depending on how much they paid in.
And does everyone pay the same rate for every dollar they make under $250k? If so how are some paying nothing and others getting back more than they paid in?
. . . to the benefits received, then fine, you've just adopted a significant rationale for the progressive income tax. Congratulations :)
And everyone does pay the same at every level - except for those whose income is allowed to be classified as capital gains. As far as those receiving more than they've paid in, you appear to be running your math without FICA once again.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Can you tell me how someone uses more if they make more? Let me guess, your going to say that business owners use the roads more because of shipping for starters correct? But all the vehicles they use are taxed. How else do they benefit more? Fire/police? Look at the stats, which neighborhoods are more likely to use those services? And which neighborhood pays more in the form of taxes?
And no including FICA I'd still have to say that people who pay in the least get a higher payout per dollar put in. See the indexing schedule for SS.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/retirebenefi...
But I don't see how state taxes on vehicles are in any way relevant to federal taxation or its expenditures on the interstate highway system. But even including the relative pennies spend on vehicle licensing, I think it's fairly clear that the Walton family (Walmart) benefits far more than you or I by it's use of the interstate system for profit.
Just like the stakeholders in Pfizer and AstraZeneca (sp?) and Monsanto benefit far more by federal enforcement of patent law.
Just like the stakeholders in Exxon and BP benefited far more by our military expenditures in the Middle East. How many foreign holdings do you have? I have exactly none. Yet we spend hundreds of billions annually to protect "American" interests abroad.
Just like the stakeholders in our major banks benefit far more from federal enforcement of banking laws (drafted in large part by their agents).
Just like the stakeholders of insurance companies benefit far more by federal enforcement of insurance fraud.
The examples are endless - mostly because a major function of any government is to maintain and enforce property rights. Those with more property have more rights to enforce and protect.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Yes they may use the roads more, but they also pay more in the form of federal fuel tax which is currently 24.4c a gallon on diesel. And in 2003 the fuel tax paid for 94% of federal funding for roads. So I'd say they pay for what they use that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_th...
And I benefit as much as the Waltons, perhaps not in profits but from use of the roads. I get things shipped to me, I have shipped things, I drive on the interstates and I benefit by being able to purchase things at the stores that have the products shipped in. Profits are not the only benefit.
For the IP enforcement, those three you mentioned usually use civil courts rather than criminal. For the medical firms, I'd say they profit more but not necessarily benefit more, most of the fed prosecution is for counterfeit medicines which for myself I'd rather not take meds that are produced who knows where and who knows how. Also most patent infringements are dealt with by civil suits not criminal. Patent laws are Constitutional, although I'd rather the enforcement be paid for by those who are violating the law through fines and such. I also benefit from patent laws because it encourages the pharmaceutical companies to come up with better drugs. Why would they invest the money it takes to design, test and market any new drugs if any other company could simply take their results and use it for their own profit. That also applies to most if not all other patents.
And I wouldn't say the oil companies benefited more, I benefit from added safety ;) and yes at the gas pumps. And I'm not actually sure if I have any foreign holdings or not. I have a small amount invested in a 203k and I'd be almost willing to bet some of the investments in it are foreign. And my father in law owned stock in BP (he worked there) along with quite a few people I know that work there.
And you keep mentioning stakeholders, how many people do you know with a 401k or 203k or similar? I'd say chances are decent they are invested in at least some of those companies.
Now for the flip side.
People who use federally funded public transportation, federally funded homes, federal refundable tax credits, etc. Are most likely to be in the percentage who either pay no federal income tax or get back more than they pay in or pay a small percentage.
For the 1st time homebuyers credit there was an income cap. For earned income again a cap.
Yes, you purchase things that are shipped on roads, but you pay for that including paying for all costs including taxes that are borne by the seller . The Waltons pass on all costs to you and then you pay even more for their profit.
And I did keep mentioning stakeholders, and I confess I'm surprised you chose to address it in this way because it really makes my argument for me. Congratulations on your portfolio. I'll grant you that, as a stakeholder, you do receive some of the benefits I was ascribing to stakeholders generally. So do I. So do many people.
But, if you recall, our present discussion is about the amount of benefits received. As far as stakeholders, it gets really easy to compare those amounts - and they are not equal.
Care to compare the amount your 203k or 401k has invested in Walmart to the billions held by the Walton family? Care to quadruple all holdings you have, pretend it's all invested in Walmart, quadruple it again, then add in all the holdings of your fifty closest friends, multiply that amount by ten, then compare it to the Walton holdings? It's probably still not even close. Nor are the benefits received as a stakeholder.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
conversation was why does someone automatically use more if they make more.
But you just said something I never thought I would hear on this site, and that is that businesses don't pay taxes. Which I agree. Taxes to them are simply another business expense which has to be factored in to make a profit same as payroll, utilities, material costs. And yes they fight increases, because that increases the cost of their product whatever it may be which causes them to sell less. Which to make the same profit off less sales they have to increase the price even more which causes less sales which leads to.....
Which is part of the reason Walmart and the Oil companies make such high profits. They don't make much off each shirt, or gallon of gas, but they sell billions of items. For instance last year I heard that the oil corps made record profits, but they only made something like 2% net. 2% isn't much. They would almost be better off investing in T-bills.
But I disagree that they benefit more than I. They sell for what they are happy with selling for. I pay what I am willing to pay. If something costs more than I am willing to pay for it, I don't buy. If I am not willing to pay what they want, they don't sell. We both benefit equally. Because we both get what we want.
But this thread was about repealing the Bush tax cuts and the people that support some or all. The tax cuts do not just benefit Corps.
But would you answer some of the questions I've asked? Such as why it is okay to take from others to benefit yourself. Notice I said take, not keep what you have or profit from a mutual free exchange.
"Of course a lot people would support something that will benefit them. Even if it negatively effects someone else." The top income earners who would like to maintain their tax cuts are behaving differently how?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
they are acting differently because they are trying to keep what is theirs, and not trying to take something that belongs to someone else for their own use.
Or to use an analogy, it would be like me wanting to keep what my garden produces compared to my neighbors who want the Govt to force me to give it to them. It negatively effects my neighbors if I don't share because then they either have to purchase it or expend their own time and energy to grow it themselves. Why should I be forced to give up what I have time and money and labor invested in? Or do you think I should be forced to share? Even if lets say they do not have the property or ability to grow the produce or the money to buy it?
Or my yard is larger than all my immediate neighbors, in fact my yard is close to 6x larger than 9 out of 11 and the other 2 I'm between 3-4x larger. Should I be forced to let them and their children use my yard because I have more of it?
For myself I do share the produce from my garden. And will continue to do so. But if I was ever forced to share it, I would burn it to the ground and salt it.
Well knock me over with a feather...
Obama mentioned the tax cuts in his presser today. He did a very good job of saying what this is all about. Hopefully the MSM will pass this along on the news today and tonight. At first blush he did a good job in the press conference relating to everything i saw except the Guantanamo subject. The Democrats have to hammer away on the tax cut for the incredibly wealthy. They have to keep hammering until Joe Sixpack and Nancy Winebox get it through their thick sculls that they will not have to worry about making over $1,000,000 a year in the near future.
Maybe CNN will make tax cuts for the middle class the story of the day! Twenty four hours of explanation and discussion about the President's tax plan. Next thing you know, everyone will actually know something about the policies, and the republican lies, and we can straiten out the country in November.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
according to this poll, 52% of respondents think the cuts should either all be extended, or all be allowed to expire, 8 points more than think they should expire for only the top tiers. hardly a compelling poll.
From 1776
John Adams: "Oh good God man, why can't you acknowledge what already exists?"
The top 1% has been beating the crap out of the Middle Class for three decades now.
Warren Buffett said that in the Class War, his class is winning.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
What year does John McCain expire?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
2008
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
The rich are accumulating such a vast sums of money that they can't find enough productive investment for it. This excess capital is then channel into speculative investigate which then boom and bust taking a good chunk of the economy with it. It would be better is this money was invested in infrastructure, education and healthcare which would give a better return. This money would be better spend doing R&D such as finding cleaner ways to provide energy or a cure for cancer.
Now there's something for CNN and MSNBC to obsess about all day!
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
but what makes you think it isn't invested? It certainly isn't stuffed in mattresses.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
that those would probably be a better use of capital. But it is their money and they should be able to use it as they see fit. If that means just piling up a bunch of it and having a bonfire that is their business.
with my own view that at a very fundamental level Americans are quite sensible. Before I get inundated with replies, yes I am aware of the numerous counterexamples. Also yes we have them too.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
with my own view that at a very fundamental level Americans are quire fundamentalist. Except liberals,
who are quite sensitive due to being stabbed in the back by the spineless. And before I get inundated,
I apologize.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
oh, why oh why do most americans hate small businesses so....
It's been class warfare alright , that is an absolute fact , the top 2 % , Wall Street and the Republican / Reich wing's war on the lower and middle class . Mexico is the model for the USA to follow , that's the Reich wing / Republican's goal , the super wealthy , "thee elite" and then the peasants , no middle class , no opposition . If the Dems have any sense they should be relentless and all over the Republicans on this one , given the performance so far of the step on a rake party that's a big "if " .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Now that they're abandoning progressive taxation, there is nothing left that distinguishes the Democrats from the GOP - absolutely nothing.
the middle class and the Gulf of Mexico.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
...when we fight back.
Well, if the country keeps going the way it's going, it will collapse. I think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is the right way to go to help get the nation back on track. It can't be tax cuts forever, because at the end of the day, the expense of running this nation has to be paid somehow. I know people complain about how high their taxes, but I also believe that people are will to accept higher taxes so long as the money is used wisely and not going into some fatcat's pocket.
Seeing mcgramps trying to act mellow is as unnerving as watching your father trying to act cool...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Grandpa already said he knows nothing about the economy when he was running for president. Why is he an expert now? Remember, he though suspending his campaign would fix everything? Well, it didn't Gramps, so STFU.
far left loon >.<
Ha! Ya, he wanted everyone to suspend their campaigns because he was getting his ass paddled.
Republicans don't have time to think about policy.
they're way too busy trying to con the voters.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
So John McCain has spoken to lots of accountants, and they've told them they don't know WHAT to do???
He should talk to my accountant! His suggestion is that I drop dead quickly, while the Bush tax cuts allow ZERO taxes on inheritance!
See.. as he told his other client, Steinbrenner, by dieing in 2010, your dependants will save MILLIONS of dollars in taxes!!!
John... are you listening???
Comments are closed on this entry