Why Should Increased Tax Revenues Be On the Table? Because Americans Support More Tax Revenues.
Really, if you have been paying any attention at all to the deficit discussions over the past 6 months or so, you will know that the only people who are against increasing tax revenues — whether that is from increased taxes on the wealthy or closing of unneeded loopholes) — are Congressional Republicans. There has been a decent amount of polling about this over the past 6 months, polling that Bruce Bartlett has rounded up at his blog.
A June 9 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 61 percent of people believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit.
A June 7 Pew poll found strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations. A plurality of people would also limit the mortgage interest deduction.
A May 26 Lake Research poll of Colorado voters found that they support higher taxes on the rich to shore-up Social Security’s finances by a 44 percent to 25 percent margin.
A May 13 Bloomberg poll found that only one third of people believe it is possible to substantially reduce the budget deficit without higher taxes; two thirds do not.
The thing that most (in debt) Americans know if that just reducing your expenditures AND reducing your revenues isn’t exactly a formula for debt payoff. They seem to know that over the past decade there have been large wars that no one has asked us to help pay for. And you won’t pay for them by just cutting taxes and reducing expenditures in other places.
This hard line position of no new tax revenues demonstrates the profound unseriousness of the Congressional GOP about deficit reduction or even about the business of governing. Time after time (and poll after poll) we see Americans support for the programs that Republicans are hell bent on cutting. Yet to ask for sacrifice on behalf of working class and middle class people who benefit from these programs without asking the wealthiest among us to do their share is pretty profoundly un-American. When we all face a major crisis, we all participate in getting past that crisis. What the GOP is now working at institutionalizing is an American caste system — where there are people expected to pay for government and wealthy people who get to extract resources from government.
For all of their bluster about the American people not supporting tax increases, we can see that is quite wrong. I don’t think that Americans want to pay more in taxes (wealthy or no) but definitely understand that if the debt and deficit is a problem, then taxes have to be a part of the solution. Time for the deficit hawks in both parties to come to terms with the stupidity they’ve started here. They’ve latched on to Pete Peterson’s plan to destroy Social Security and Medicare via a narrative on debt reduction. When time after time we can see real data that shows that the current debt problem is tax cuts (the reduction of revenues) and spending on wars. Yet these are the two things that are “off the table”. Which — if you look at those polls — tells you that these hard-line conservatives are not representing *the American people* at all.
Tags: Republican Bamboozlement, taxes
I don’t know how many times over the past 6 months I’ve heard Republicans and Democrats link tax cuts and economic stimulus, as if it was patently obvious that the only way to create jobs is to cut Paris Hilton”s taxes.
Millions of times. Billions probably.
Hello,
I was just going through some debt and tax sites and blogs and came across your site (delawareliberal.net) too. I really found it interesting and informative. I am working and associated with many finance sites as a content writer and I write articles on various topics of Finances. I really liked the way you have presented your site. I would love to do a “Guest Post” for your site like I did for other sites without charging you a penny. 🙂
Some of the companies I co-author for are Community Development Financial Institutions, Oak View Law Group, Center for Community Development Investments etc. It would be great to be a part of reputed site like yours. 🙂
The article will be 100% original and will be published only on your site. If you want you can suggest me a topic and I ll write an article for you on that topic.
Contact me at shannen.doherty86@gmail.com .Looking forward for a positive reply. 🙂
Thanks,
Shannen
It’s the Republicans that have declared the rich sacred and untaxable, no the American people. Thier real intent is to destroy first Medicare and if possible Social Security. As stated by many they have no real intent to balance the budget, like all good politicians thier goal is to attack thier eneimies and reward thier friends ( Koch Brothers this means you ). Supply Side Economics claims tax cuts “pay for themselves” in increased revenue and revenue may indeed rise, but not in thirty years has a tax cut of any sort paid for itself. Tax the rich and be done with it.
I am for a 17% flat tax rate federal income tax. Everyone would pay the same rate. The guy or gal that makes $1,000, The guy or gal that makes $50,000, and the guy or gal that makes $500,000. Even the business, large or small that makes $50,000, or makes $500,000.
Everyone and every business pays the same tax rate. In that way, there is no penalty for having 2 or 3 jobs, or for making alot of money, and conversely, there is no benefit for making a small amount of money. Everyone pays 17% federal tax rate. No other deductions, Everyone pays 17%. Earned or Unearned, everyone pays the same 17%. There is nothing fairer than that.
I’ll second that, Rusty. And the same for inheritance/estate taxes. If you’re going to tax them, tax them ALL at the same rate.
Delbert, I guess you missed this part of Rusty’s surprisingly progressive idea:
“Earned or Unearned, everyone pays the same 17%. ”
The tax on unearned income is currently 15%, so Rusty is actually proposing a tax increase on the rich.
No flat tax proposal has ever included this. You would never get this through a Republican Congress.
I’d be for Rusty’s plan, but with three-step progressive brackets.
We shouldn’t be taking 17% of bare subsistence incomes.
You won’t get it through any Congress, because that tax rate would cut government expenditures roughly in half. ANY flat/fair tax is simply a way of cutting taxes on the rich.
You won’t get it through any Congress, because that tax rate would cut government expenditures roughly in half.
It’s closer than you think. The Ryan budget does most of what a flat tax would do, by zeroing out investment and estate taxes, and cutting the top marginal rate. And it is already passed by the House, and there is every indication that elements of it will be included in the final deal. The Overton window is much closer to a flat tax than it was before the Obama presidency.
When Republicans compromise for less than they want and say “we’ll fix it later,” they mean it.
The Ryan budget is radioactive, which is why they unveiled it right after the elections — they want people to forget their outrage before next November.
There can be nothing as destructive to “conservative” theories as putting them into practice. Once the deal is struck and government services decrease, people are going to notice that the few dollars they save in taxes are far outweighed by the services they now have to pay out of their own pockets.
The Ryan budget in its entirety is radioactive, but it was successful in putting Medicare cuts on the table, with support by key Democrats. Now the camel’s nose is under the social insurance tent.
Republicans have mastered the negotiation skill of asking for more than you expect, a skill which apparently eludes Obama to this day.
do you think we could raises taxes on everyone, like the polls indicate, and put that increased revenued to just and only just reducing our debt? If so, I believe that people would have no issue with this.
I’m going to take a guess. A real far, far out guess and say, that there are Democrats that aren’t in favor of raising taxes too.
I think they call them blue dogs. While sure, this is mostly an R issue, somehow, we always seem to forget the assholes within the Dem party that consistently vote with the R’s.
The Repuk’s keep yelling that cutting taxes WILL CREATE JOBS. Well Bush blew Clinton’s surplus by cutting Taxes so where are the jobs?????
In China.
Cassandra entitled her article, “Why Should Increased Tax Revenues Be On the Table? Because Americans Support More Tax Revenues.” Yet, when Americans were actually asked to vote on the subject, they voted for the party which was promising not to increase taxes, which was promising to cut the deficit solely by reducing spending. Y’all are great at coming up with opinion polls showing support for higher taxes, but, amazingly enough, when it comes to the only polls that actually count, the public vote for the candidates promising lower taxes.
Even in 2008, when the Democrats won big, Barack Obama had the “Obama Tax Cut Calculator” on his website, showing how much more people would save with his plan over that of John McCain. And you can look at virtually every presidential election: it’s the candidate promising lower taxes who wins.
Of course, there was a presidential candidate who promised to increase taxes, in 1984. Anybody remember how many states he carried? 🙂
Of course, I support honesty among political candidates. If the Democrats believe we should have higher taxes, I think that they ought to have that in their platform and run on raising taxes in 2012.
Anyone here think that they will?
Dana has a point. Nobody ever lost an election for cutting taxes.
That’s why raising taxes when economics demands it is always a Profiles in Courage moment. Our representatives ain’t got it.
On the other hand, Obama did win in 2008 on his pledge to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire in 2010, which polled well in surveys and in the voting booth. And oddly enough, he’s running on the same pledge in 2010.
2012, I meant. The tax-cut expiration pledge worked so well in 2008, Obama is going to try it again in 2012.
If raising taxes only on the top producers is so popular, perhaps someone can explain to me why the Democrats didn’t pass such legislation before the 2010 elections, when they had a huge majority in the House of Representatives, and 59 votes in the Senate. yeah, with 41 Republicans in the Senate, it’s possible that the GOP could have filibustered such an increase, but the Democrats never even tried it.
Instead, they did nothing, which led a lot of people to believe that what the Democrats really wanted to do was let all of the 2001/2003 tax cuts expire.
If raising taxes only on the top producers is so popular, perhaps someone can explain to me
Pelosi’s House did pass the middle-class-only tax cuts. But Republicans held and still hold an ideological majority in the Senate.
it’s possible that the GOP could have filibustered such an increase, but the Democrats never even tried it.
Actually in a cynical act of kabuki theater, the Senate did hold the vote on the House version, and it was filibustered as planned.
Failing to let the tax cuts expire was Obama’s Bill Buckner moment.
“If raising taxes only on the top producers is so popular…”
Nobody has suggested raising taxes on “top producers” — just the top 2% of wage earners. Only an idiot or a conservative would pretend they’re the same thing.
The top 2% of wage earners are the top producers; that’s why they make the most money.
Puck wrote:
Yeah, they passed it: after the election, while President Obama was still negotiating on extending all of the tax cuts.
Heh – the top two percenters most likely were in the same bracket when their mommas birthed them.
Like mitt
Like trump
Like huntsman
Like most of rest of the bootstrap brigade.
The support comes from the rubes who actually believe that they’ll be as wealthy as threir heroes someday.
That’s the issue.
“The top 2% of wage earners are the top producers; that’s why they make the most money.”
As I said, only a fool or a conservative would think the top wage earners are the top “producers.”
The tea party mantra “It,s a spending problem, not a revenue problem” is proving to be totally bogus, the result,s are coming in from states that cut spending and those that increased spending, and those that used the tea party method have seen both government and private sector unemployment rise and overall growth fall below the national average by as much as 2%, causing more budget shortfalls not less, going after additional revenue, especially from the top 1%, makes much more sense than cutting spending alone.
Link to Chris Coons talking about the issue this morning on CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/05/earlyshow/main20076789.shtml
Thanks anon; reading between the lines here, the republicans are playing political gamesmanship here, they want to pass blame for entitlement cuts over to the democrats and they do not want to tax the rich, and if the economy tanks they could care less, knowing that will help them come election time, it,s a sick sick party, but dumbed down Americans cannot seem to figure out the facts here.
Yet, when Americans were actually asked to vote on the subject, they voted for the party which was promising not to increase taxes, which was promising to cut the deficit solely by reducing spending.
Actually, this is not quite right. Americans voted for better performance of the economy, being largely unhappy with current conditions. Anyone remember John Boehner whinging about Where were the jobs? Americans did *not* vote for the ideological bullshit that is the current project of Republicans. And you can start with the dismal poll numbers of Scott Walker, Rick Scott, John Kasich and Chris Christie to see the massive buyer’s remorse here.
Republicans have gotten into office and proceeded to work on the projects that those who paid them want. Abortion, budget deficits, voter disenfranchisement, massive cost shifting to the middle class and working class — not *one* of those things generates a job for anyone. Strike that — it does help to inflate the staff of these ideologues. The GOP uses their time in office to check off the wish list of the people who sent them there. Democrats tend to want to *govern*. And there is a really big difference there.
Geezer, you are not looking at it right. In physics, The definition of work, is accomplishing something. force x distance. If you just pick up an object, and put it back down, in physics, you have done no work. If two different guys start similar business, and they each hire 5 workers. And the first guy manages his business properly, and so as a business owner, his business makes $100,000, Then that can be a measure of his productivity. (as far as earning power is concerned) If the second guy mismanages his business, and only makes $20,000, then he is much less productive than the first guy.(As far as earning power is concerned). You have to learn to look at it that way. The guy that managed his business properly and made $100,000, is 5 times more productive, (as far as earning power is concerned), than the guy who’s identical business with the same amount of employees only made $20,000.
P.S. For my 17% flat tax rate proposal to work, the tax rate has to be the same for everyone. Even the people making a low amount of income. Even $1,000 or less per year. In that way everyone, not just some people, but everyone pays their fare share. My plan only works if everyone pays the same tax rate. The good thing about the guy making only a few thousdand dollars per year on my plan, is that if he can, he can get a second job, and make more money, but his tax rate does not increase. He still just pays 17%.
Imagine the motivation that would take hold, if you knew you could someway become a higher earner, yet your tax rate would not increase. I think the U.S. would become very productive again.
Rusty Dils; nationwide people are having trouble finding one job, let alone 2 jobs, your plan would work in China, where most of our jobs where moved to, run it by them.
No, Rusty, you’re the one not looking at it “right.” This isn’t physics, and money and productivity have far from a direct effect on each other in this society. Your Econ 101 understanding of the economy is an insult to the intelligence of everyone else here.
“For my 17% flat tax rate proposal to work…”
I’m sure your plan will get a full hearing from the US Congress. This is one thing that always cracks me up about right-wing half-asses — they think the world is waiting with bated breath for some nobody like them to come up with solutions to enormous problems that have baffled the best and the brightest. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.
Anything that starts with “it’s really simple…” is immediately ignored by most people.
Cassandra tries to obscure the truth:
Well, whatever you happen to believe the voters’ motivations were, they still wound up voting for the guys who promised no tax increases. Anyone can speculate on the reasons the voters took their collective decisions, but who they voted for is an indisputable fact.
But, hey, go right ahead: if the Democrats want higher taxes, let them run on that platform in 2012! I, for one, will appreciate the honesty.
There’s no obstruction in pointing out that the theme of the GOP campaign was twofold: Where are the jobs? and Stopping Obama from cutting Medicare.
And there’s no obstruction in noting that both of these were Lies The GOP Told. Again.
Well, whatever you happen to believe the voters’ motivations were, they still wound up voting for the guys who promised no tax increases.
This is one of the sources of Buyer’s Remorse, you know. Along with the Lies about jobs and Medicare.
Anyone can speculate on the reasons the voters took their collective decisions, but who they voted for is an indisputable fact.
So this is your walkback of the certainty you had previously that “Yet, when Americans were actually asked to vote on the subject, they voted for the party which was promising not to increase taxes”, right? Even the GOP wasn’t asking people to vote on taxes — they were asking them to vote on jobs and Medicare.
Republicans successfully convinced enough voters that their tax cuts for the rich IS a jobs program, despite all evidence to the contrary. And they will probably be successful with this bullshit again.
Doesn’t matter, Cassandra: the people voted for the guys who promised no new taxes, and who promised to cut the deficit and debt through spending cuts. They’re the guys who control the House of Representatives, and it’s hardly a surprise that they are doing what they said they’d do.
One chamber of Congress does not a national mandate make.
Now that’s a little closer to honest, Dana. Your guys campaigned on a bunch of lies but once in they are working on making sure that the wealthiest Americans get tax relief and whatever other American resources funneled to them as possible. Jobs for Americans be damned.
So hey– if the GOP wants to continue to protect the income of the wealthiest Americans, I would welcome their running on that in 2012. There isn’t a single working class or middle class American who wouldn’t appreciate the honesty.
Puck is right. The ability of the Republicans to win on dumbed down BS has been proven time and again. They can and will do it again because they have a learned contempt for reality.
The proof that tax cuts do not create jobs is the current economy, but Democrats can’t argue that line effectively because they have bought into the Republican tax cut world view.
“the people voted for the guys who promised no new taxes”
True, but then Republicans for decades now have always promised no new taxes. You could actually check the exit polls to see why people voted Republican, but that might undermine your argument. Better to just make shit up.