FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Most Americans+Repubs support tax raise on wealthy





handfleisch
72% support raising taxes on the rich! The talk shows will tell you the opposite from the truth on this one, and the mainstream media isn't touching it. Tax rates on the rich are at their lowest in 50 years. If regular people had the power like we're supposed to in this country, we would be solving our so-called crisis quite simply. We would be going at a main cause, the lack of revenue due to the wealthy paying less and less while owning more and more, by making the rich pay as much as they used to always traditionally pay.

Quote:
Large Majority Of Americans, Including Most Republicans, Support Raising Taxes On The Wealthy

As the debate about how to deal with the federal deficit heats up, two new polls show that large, bipartisan majorities of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy, as President Obama has proposed doing.

A central piece of Obama's deficit reduction plan calls for raising taxes on annual income above $250,000. Though tax hikes are generally thought to be unpopular, both a Washington Post/ABC News poll and a McClatchy-Marist survey found that a majority of Americans supported that proposal. What's more, even a majority of Republicans in the Washington Post/ABC News poll said they favored raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

In addition, both polls found Americans overwhelmingly opposed to a deficit reduction plan pushed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) that would ultimately privatize Medicare, the federal healthcare program for the elderly. Taken together, those findings show that in the looming deficit debate, Obama may hold an edge in public opinion.

The Washington Post/ABC News survey asked American adults whether they supported or opposed a list of proposals to reduce the deficit. Seventy-two percent of all respondents said they supported raising taxes on annual income over $250,000, including 54% of respondents who said they "strongly" supported that position. Democrats were most supportive of that proposal (91%), but so too were a majority of independents (68%) and Republicans (54%.)

Additionally, 27% said they opposed increasing taxes on income earned beyond $250,000 per year.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_04172011.html

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/US110410/McClatchy/McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Complete%20April%2018th,%202011%20USA%20Poll%20Tables.pdf

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/large-majority-of-americans-including-most-republicans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy.php?ref=fpa
ocalhoun
I'll give you three guesses why it won't happen, despite a mostly-democrat controlled government...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I'll give you three guesses why it won't happen, despite a mostly-democrat controlled government...
I can't think of three. Only one. Which is that the rich are IN EFFECT running the country and the Government. Perhaps even the world. Twisted Evil
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I'll give you three guesses why it won't happen, despite a mostly-democrat controlled government...
I can't think of three. Only one. Which is that the rich are IN EFFECT running the country and the Government. Perhaps even the world. Twisted Evil

Aw... This was a guessing game for handfleisch...
It's no good if you give away the answer!
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
...Which is that the rich are IN EFFECT running the country and the Government. Perhaps even the world.
That's the truth, DH. Unless there are built-in democratic safeguards against it, the rich end up with most of the power, as they have here (and in most other forms of government too)

Here's a link especially for you, "Plutocracy Now"
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
...Which is that the rich are IN EFFECT running the country and the Government. Perhaps even the world.
That's the truth, DH. Unless there are built-in democratic safeguards against it, the rich end up with most of the power, as they have here (and in most other forms of government too)
Quite an eyeopener HF, thanks for posting it. Especially how the richest members of Congress are voting. It's a puzzle that people that are so wealthy are members of Congress .... on the other hand, maybe that is how they got wealthy in the first place.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
built-in democratic safeguards against it,

Problem is, the rich bought those, too.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
72% support raising taxes on the rich!

It’s sad that the Left has conditioned Americans to think that the solution to the problems they created through reckless is to simply seize what others have produced for their own gain. Instead of elevating and reinforcing the behaviors that allow people to make profit and be productive (working hard, studying in school to obtain a good education, investing and thinking long term rather than simply consuming, etc), they seem to think that a welfare state will somehow produce “plenty for all” despite evidence to the contrary right in front of their faces.


BTW, if you look at the question posed in the survey, it’s a pretty loaded question. There are many more choices than simply:

Quote:

a. Cutting spending on Medicaid, which is the government health insurance program for the poor

b. Cutting spending on Medicare, which is the government health insurance program for the elderly

c. Cutting military spending

d. Raising taxes on Americans with incomes over 250-thousand dollars a year




It also looks like very few favor simply raising taxes to fix Obama and the Democrats’ spending mess:
Quote:

14. Overall, what do you think is the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit - (by cutting federal spending), (by increasing taxes), or by a combination of both?
36% - Cutting federal spending
3% - Increasing taxes
59% - Combination of both
2% - No opinion



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_04172011.html





handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
...Which is that the rich are IN EFFECT running the country and the Government. Perhaps even the world.

That's the truth, DH. Unless there are built-in democratic safeguards against it, the rich end up with most of the power, as they have here (and in most other forms of government too)

Exactly. Obama and the Democrats in power have squandered our resources to help their rich campaign investors rather than actually help the people they claim to help. For example, one only has to look at the HUGE handout they gave to insurance companies via Obamacare on the backs of average citizens to realize here their allegiances reside.
Navigator
Looks like someone understood for a long time that taxing the rich actually helped America, during the New Deal or WWII, and even Eisenhower and Kennedy knew this as the graph show, but once Kennedy was taken out, its been non-stop partying for the top 1%.
liljp617
Rich people got where they are because they worked hard! Poor people and the middle class are just a bunch of lazy mf'ers. If they want to survive and own things, they should open a book and go to Harvard. Problem solved.

This is who creates wealth in America:



These people should have gotten a degree from MIT. They deserve to get shafted for their laziness:

jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
Rich people got where they are because they worked hard! Poor people and the middle class are just a bunch of lazy mf'ers. If they want to survive and own things, they should open a book and go to Harvard. Problem solved.

This is who creates wealth in America:

These people should have gotten a degree from MIT. They deserve to get shafted for their laziness:


I’m not sure if you are looking for a response or just displaying your ignorance. I never said “Poor people and the middle class are just a bunch of lazy mf'ers. ” You did. But the point isn’t that you have to get a degree from Harvard, MIT or any other specific school to do well. However learning something in school rather than spending time goofing off no matter what school you go to is a good idea. Instead, the Left would rather set up systems and policies that reward failure instead of excellence, and they then wonder why so many students fail at the most basic skills.

And yes, people who are lazy should not enjoy the same rewards as those who industrious and work hard. I really don’t understand why is that is such a difficult concept for the Left to grasp and accept. I respect anyone who is willing to work hard, regardless of what circumstances they are brought into.
catscratches
So all the people stuck in low-end, shitty, poorly paid jobs don't work hard? Oh, but they should have worked harder in school, of course! If everyone was properly educated no one would have to do those jobs! It's not like their necessary and the rest of society's wealth is dependent on all the poorly paid low-class workers anyways.
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
So all the people stuck in low-end, shitty, poorly paid jobs don't work hard? Oh, but they should have worked harder in school, of course! If everyone was properly educated no one would have to do those jobs! It's not like their necessary and the rest of society's wealth is dependent on all the poorly paid low-class workers anyways.


In liljp617's defense, I think he was simply attempting to be sarcastic.
catscratches
I know that perfectly well.
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Rich people got where they are because they worked hard! Poor people and the middle class are just a bunch of lazy mf'ers. If they want to survive and own things, they should open a book and go to Harvard. Problem solved.

This is who creates wealth in America:

These people should have gotten a degree from MIT. They deserve to get shafted for their laziness:


I’m not sure if you are looking for a response or just displaying your ignorance. I never said “Poor people and the middle class are just a bunch of lazy mf'ers. ” You did. But the point isn’t that you have to get a degree from Harvard, MIT or any other specific school to do well. However learning something in school rather than spending time goofing off no matter what school you go to is a good idea. Instead, the Left would rather set up systems and policies that reward failure instead of excellence, and they then wonder why so many students fail at the most basic skills.

And yes, people who are lazy should not enjoy the same rewards as those who industrious and work hard. I really don’t understand why is that is such a difficult concept for the Left to grasp and accept. I respect anyone who is willing to work hard, regardless of what circumstances they are brought into.


What of the people who do not get to grow up in a nice middle-class neighborhood with ample opportunity to succeed? What of the people who can't afford $10,000 in tuition, or $500 for books every semester? What of the people who work their asses off but still fall into difficult situations or make financial mistakes? They're not that rare a class of people, especially right now. The member of society with three houses and a yacht should bear no responsibility for helping his fellow members of society when they fall off the wagon (assuming they were ever allowed on it)?

I have no disagreement that hard work played a role in most wealthy people getting where they are, but there are also a lot of external -- arguably uncontrollable -- factors that determine success besides simply reading books and trying hard.

This really isn't much of a political discussion. It goes quite a bit deeper than that. I think you've played out the "left this, left that" over the years here.
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
What of the people who do not get to grow up in a nice middle-class neighborhood with ample opportunity to succeed?

What do you consider “ample opportunity to succeed”? In a democratic/capitalistic society we all have equal opportunities to succeed, but as the Left’s motto goes “we’re all equal, but some are more equal than others.” But surely you’re not suggesting that the only people who have ever ‘succeeded’ are those in with middle-class backgrounds, are you? That argument could easily be knocked down, as the class-warfare argument is inherently bankrupt. I won’t go into my own history here, but following the Left’s logic on this issue, I should have never amounted to anything and would have ended up incarcerated somewhere or in need of handouts from the government. But such is not the case, and I am not some type of outlier; it is much more common than you may have been led to believe.


liljp617 wrote:
What of the people who can't afford $10,000 in tuition, or $500 for books every semester?

You’re right in that postsecondary education is expensive, but I don’t understand why you are fixated on the idea that someone has to go to Harvard, MIT, etc. to be considered a ‘success.’ I do believe that the concept of long-term investment in self and growth is waning, which may be why people expect not to have to work hard and slowly approach success rather than have it all thrust on them at once. As I have clearly stated, it’s more of a matter of working hard at and paying attention during the educational opportunities you are given, rather than goofing off. But if you want to goof off and sit there like a log, that’s fine. Just don’t expect to then enjoy the fruits of labor from those who actually put in some effort and sacrificed to better themselves and their lot.



liljp617 wrote:
What of the people who work their asses off but still fall into difficult situations or make financial mistakes? They're not that rare a class of people, especially right now.

No, they are not all that rare, despite all the Leftist programs and policies that have promised to eradicate poverty and social ills. Tells you something, doesn’t it. But one cause of the misunderstanding is that the Left likes to claim that those who don’t agree with their statist policies are somehow anti-compassion or anti-charity. That’s simply not the case; we simply believe that it is not the role of government, but rather individuals and private groups to perform charitable work with their own money as they see fit rather than at the whim of some bureaucrat. It’s always interesting to hear the Left’s claims that “someone” should pay for their pet projects, but they refuse to make the sacrifices themselves.



liljp617 wrote:
The member of society with three houses and a yacht should bear no responsibility for helping his fellow members of society when they fall off the wagon (assuming they were ever allowed on it)?

Personally, I think they do, and I give a pretty sizable chunk of my earnings to charity (17% last year – I only know the exact percentage because I just did my taxes a little over a month ago). But if someone accumulated however many houses or whatever they have legally and ethically, I don’t see what right I or anyone else has to confiscate it because I or they think we can put it to ‘better’ use. I don’t begrudge another for their success, and I don’t see why the Left chooses to demonize productive members of society. If anything, the Left should kiss their arses, because if it wasn’t for the productive members of society, there wouldn’t be anything to “spread around” within their programs and policies. But confiscating the hard-earned products of others - no matter how much you think you are entitled to it - is called theft, and the idea that a certain segment of the population can be plundered for the benefit of another is also a bankrupt ideal.


liljp617 wrote:
I have no disagreement that hard work played a role in most wealthy people getting where they are, but there are also a lot of external -- arguably uncontrollable -- factors that determine success besides simply reading books and trying hard.

Yes, there are other factors, but you can only control what you can control. If people took personal responsibility and accountability rather than looking for a handout or looking to take from others, it would be a good start.


liljp617 wrote:
This really isn't much of a political discussion. It goes quite a bit deeper than that.

I disagree. I think it is a political discussion, and the Left’s erosion of the American Spirit is at the very heart of what is going wrong with the country (and you see it worldwide with what is happing in Europe, including Greece).


liljp617 wrote:
I think you've played out the "left this, left that" over the years here.

Well, that’s your opinion, and you’re free to have it. But I will stop complaining about the Left and its stupid, statist policies as soon as they limit their reach to themselves and keep out of my business. If they want to try to take what we have earned ourselves, the least they can expect is us to complain.
catscratches
jmi256 wrote:
It’s always interesting to hear the Left’s claims that “someone” should pay for their pet projects, but they refuse to make the sacrifices themselves.
"Lefts" are exempt from taxes now?
Navigator
You know who has a shitty job, hard work but does a great help for you? Your janitor and the trash truck guys, they take away thousands of substances and chemicals that harm you. Do they get paid as they should? On the other hand, Wall Street are just a bunch of crazy greedy lunatics gambling with other peoples/countries money/economy/wellbeing.
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
It’s always interesting to hear the Left’s claims that “someone” should pay for their pet projects, but they refuse to make the sacrifices themselves.
"Lefts" are exempt from taxes now?

Some seem to think they are (Rangel, Geithner, etc.). But tax cheats aside, I surely don’t see them spending their own money to fund the programs and policies they want to impose on others, but instead look to use the tax code to force others to pay for them. If you/they want to voluntarily send more of your own money the federal government to pay for your pet projects, knock yourself out. But by what right do you have to put a gun to someone’s head and confiscate their earnings like thieves to pay for something you want? While the Left likes to claim they want to help the poor and unfortunate, they are miserly with their own money and conservatives donate much more to charities than those on the Left.



Navigator wrote:
You know who has a shitty job, hard work but does a great help for you? Your janitor and the trash truck guys, they take away thousands of substances and chemicals that harm you. Do they get paid as they should? On the other hand, Wall Street are just a bunch of crazy greedy lunatics gambling with other peoples/countries money/economy/wellbeing.

If a private investor (or a group of investors) want to pay some guy on Wall Street (or anywhere else for that matter) a sh*tload of their own money to then see him lose it, it’s no concern of mine. It’s a private contract between the two parties, and no one is forced to enter it. If you don’t want to give your money to people on Wall Street, then simply don’t. Put it under your mattress, make origami out of it; I don’t really care, it’s up to you. On the flip side, if you really think the janitor at your school, work office, residential building, etc. deserves some extra money for the work he provides you, feel free to write him a check. No one is stopping you. I agree it can be a sh*tty job, and I wouldn’t want that as a career. I have had some really crappy jobs when I was younger (much worse than being a janitor), but I used those as stepping stones to better myself and my situation.

I know you didn’t suggest this Navigator, and I’m not trying to pick on you personally and use the “you” in a general way, so please take this with a grain of salt, but I think this feeling of apathy and powerlessness is exactly what I hate about the Left’s worldview and what it’s done to people. Instead of being personally accountable and responsible for what goes on in the world, people are simply too quick to think “someone” (i.e. someone else, not them and usually “the government,” which means everyone else) should do something instead of taking action themselves. If you think someone should be paid more, then pay them more. Why do you feel the need to force others to take action that you are unwilling to first take yourself? Now you can complain that one person can’t make that much of a difference, but I think that’s a weak argument. If others feel the same way as you do about a certain cause, they will join you and soon you will “be the change you want to see in the world.”
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:


I have no disagreement that hard work played a role in most wealthy people getting where they are, but there are also a lot of external -- arguably uncontrollable -- factors that determine success besides simply reading books and trying hard.

This really isn't much of a political discussion. It goes quite a bit deeper than that. I think you've played out the "left this, left that" over the years here.


I know where you're coming from, but I would bet that an overwhelming majority of rich adults in the USA were born rich in the first place. That so-called hard work was in past generations, and to get into that is sticky too.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
I know where you're coming from, but I would bet that an overwhelming majority of rich adults in the USA were born rich in the first place. That so-called hard work was in past generations, and to get into that is sticky too.
I've always wondered about this, would be great to find out if there is a study that has been done on this. So far I do agree with you. If one checks out the most wealthy guys in the US, they tend to come from a background of privilege, unless they have lucked out on a real niche market of a kind. Sort of a rags to riches story. I'd say the latter would apply to the Hollywood bunch. Do you realize some of them are worth billions? Not even millions?
Related topics
Health Care bill
Romney Break Down
In Search of Non-Corrupt Politicians
Should marijuana be legal?
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Dem's Global Warming Debacle
Thanks Obama for the working class tax cuts
Occupy Wall Street: a REAL grassroots movement for change?
Tea Party = Occupy??
Obama's State of the Union 2012
Is this the reason why Romney lost?
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
BUSH'S Poll Numbers Up
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.