Welcome to PatsFans.com

80% of Americans support higher taxes on earnings over 250k/year

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Oct 11, 2011.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    According to figures released by Bloomberg and The Washington Post on Tuesday, eight in 10 Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support raising taxes on households earning over $250,000 a year. A full 81 percent of Democrats were behind the plan, along with 67 percent of independents and 53 percent of Republicans.

    Poll: Middle-class pain necessary, but widely unpopular - Behind the Numbers - The Washington Post


    Of course, with anything in Washington...80% isn't a majority.
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Gee people want others taxed and not themselves. People being greedy with Other peoples money what a shock.

    When people offer to have their taxes raised (especially the 47% that don't pay federal taxes) wake me up.
  3. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    in other news,

    100% of all death row inmates are against the death penalty
  4. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,279
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I'm guessing 81% of Americans don't make $250k a year.

    Raising tax rates is the wrong move imo. Eliminating a lot of the breaks & loopholes is the wiser road to travel.
  5. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    I'd support raising taxes on them. but of course, I'm like the other 80% who supports a tax increase that doesn't affect me!

    I honestly wouldn't raise them much on people who earn between $250-$500K. People think $250k/year is "Wealthy", but it's not. It's doing very well, but not wealthy.

    I'd prefer to increase on those who have amassed a great deal of wealth.
  6. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    You know... If we stopped taxing at such a high rate on the federal level, we could have more appropriate taxes based on cost of living and location. 250,000 in NYC isn't compareable to everywhere else...

    People need to wake up and shrink the federal government.
  7. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    As others have alluded to, I don't understand the $250k threshold.

    More importantly, and this echos other posts here, I don't think taxes should be raised on one segment of the population. It's the wrong way to govern and it opens the door to even worse actions.

    If we're going to raise rates on those making over $250k, we need to raise them on everybody, imo. Not necessarily by the same amount, but the hit has to be felt by everybody. And if that means not raising taxes right now, then we don't raise taxes right now.
  8. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    I think a healthy reduction in entitlements would be a good start
  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,490
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -4

    My Jersey:

    What will our beautiful wonderful politicians do with all that money,

    1 Take care of our country
    2 Build a statue of Barack Hussein Obama
    3 Buy a new Jet for Nancy pelosi
    4 Support and provide college for 12 million illegal aliens
    5 Bulid hotels for Wino's
    6 Put Uncle Teddys head on Mt Rushmore
    7 Buy everybody on welfare a new motorhome to visit disneyland.
    8 Buy Michelle some shirts that fit her.
    9 Build Aunt Zucchini and Uncle Omar new homes on Malibu Beach.
    10 Give it all to Somalia

    :bricks:
    "what should be done about billionaire liberal democrats like soros and oprah"
  10. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,279
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I've evolved on taxes over my lifetime. I used to think people make under $X shouldn't be taxed. Then I realized that while the intention is noble, people who aren't taxed don't have a stake in the game. Once you reach 51% of the people not being taxed, you could theoretically have a situation where the non taxed vote themselves more of someone elses. Obviously that's an over simplified generalization, but you get the point. I think everyone should pay some tax. Save for those in poverty. What really bothers me, is that there are people who get back thousands more than they've even paid in taxes. That's really absurd to me.

    Like I said before, I wouldn't raisie rates. I'd instead close loopholes and eliminate certain breaks. What good is having a 30% rate, if by the time your high priced CPA is done, you're paying 21% of a shrunken sum? Raising rates will only mean that the people with the higher priced CPA's will pay less, or the industries with the best lobbyists will shape the actions of an increased pool of tax shelter seekers.
  11. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    In other words 80% of the 98% who earn less than 250K support higher taxes. The 18% difference are those who think they may be earning 250K sometime in the future.

    This is news worthy?
  12. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    says an 18%er





    Lowering taxes is doing super swell at creating jobs. Just look at the skyrocketing economy!
    This is newsworthy because the 80% of americans are not in the pocket of those making laws. the 1% are.

    Guess who wins in the american democracy?
  13. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    A couple of personal opinions (my solutions) on the subject.

    1. Get rid of all income tax (personal and corporate). Then install a consumption tax on all goods and services purchased.

    2. If that is too much of a pipe dream, get rid of the current monstrosity of a tax code and have a 1 page tax code. Regardless of what you made, you pay X%. No deductions, no write-offs.
  14. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    What is the rationale for a consumption tax? Why is that a sound basis for taxation?
  15. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,279
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I've always been intrigued by a consumption tax. I just don't think it will ever fly. The argument that it disproportionally affects lower income earners kinda sinks that ship. I think a simplified tax code with fewer brackets, and fewer deductions, is the way to go.
  16. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    1. I feel it is a fairer means of taxation. You are taxed on what you use, not what you make. All people have to consume things and thus everyone would pay for their use. Could be lower on certain good (necessities and higher on luxury items, but I prefer a single rate).

    2. As a result of taxing consumption, you would bring in "new" tax streams; namely the 51 percent of people (rich or poor) who paid nothing would now pay something. On top of that, "blackmarkets"; drug dealers and the like, would now be taxed, where as currently they are not.

    3. Would be an easier system to follow and understand for everyone. (but anything would be easier to follow than what we have now).

    4. Would get rid of all or most of the IRS.

    5. Could potentially increase worker production, as the one drawback to making more money (higher tax rate) would be removed.

    Thats just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
  17. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I agree. Would there be exemptions for things like food and clothes?

    A simplified tax code would be great but we won't see it in our lifetimes.
  18. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    Do you have the "guts" on it impacts the poor more argument? Just curious.

    I guess you could say that under the current situation Person X is poor and pays no income tax, and thus if they paid X% on what they consumed, is an affect, then yeah I would agree. But X% on a $2 good is far less that X% on a $100K good, which pressumably a poor person wouldn't/couldn't purchase.

    Everyone who uses an inch of road, a page in a school textbook, is provided security by their local police/fire dept, etc etc etc should pay something (and i think that would cover most of us)
  19. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    I would be fine with clothes/food being tax free (as they currently are correct?)

    You and RW are right, we probably wont see it, because they who run the joint (lobbyists and special interests) would never let it happen.
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2011
  20. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    There are states that tax food. I understand meals taxes when you go to a restaurant, but taxing a loaf of bread isn't cool.

    In Massachusetts food and clothing are not taxed.
  21. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:


    The Fair Tax proposal contemplates a prebate for all taxpayers to offset a portion of the sales tax it would function the way a personal exemption does.

    My issue with the Fair Tax (and Cain's 9-9-9 proposal which evolves into the Fair Tax) is allowing a NRST without repealing the 16th amendment to prevent the return of the Income tax in the future. That is why I favor the Falt tax.
  22. Michael

    Michael Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #12 Jersey
    And the limo liberals want others taxed and not themselves. Kerry avoids taxes on his yacht. Lovey keeps her billions in Munis. The Kennedys went to the courts when Jackie O died to get their inheritance declared as "income" (taxed at 40%) and not "inheritance" (taxed at 55%). They probated mama Rose's will in FL even though she hadn't left MA in over a decade. But, they would have payed more in inheritance tax in Teddy's MA. ;). Geithner says taxes are for the little people. And don't get me started on Hollywood. You and I don't pay 10-15 bucks to see a movie for nothing. Also what they fail to realize is the rich have the power. "First you get the money, then you get the power... When you tax them higher they don't absorb the cost. They pass it on to us. We pay more for everything. There really is no such thing as taxing the rich. You just need to cut spending and especially waste.
  23. Michael

    Michael Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #12 Jersey
    MA taxes "prepared" food. So you can buy chicken tax free but, if Market Basket cooks it for you they tax it. You'd be surprised what gets classified as "prepared". But, I do all my grocery shopping in NH. I also avoid the stupid bottle bill.
  24. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:



    Do as I say not as I do the credo of lib class warriors.
  25. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    There are plenty of rich "liberals" in congress that vote to raise their own taxes. Too bad the rich "conservatives" vote those bills down every single time.

    Hollywood? "Liberal" actors approve of tax increases and will pay the taxes.
  26. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:



    The dems had total control of tax policy until 1/2011 they did nothing. This is an election ploy to fool the suckers.


    If they were serious they could have done it, they didn't.
  27. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    1) But why is taxing somebody based on "use" fair? Seems to me, the most fair tax would be either that people pay the same amount or pay an increasing amount based on ability to contribute (i.e., income or assets). Why is it more "fair" for a wealthy miser to pay more in taxes than a father of four making good money but a fractioon of the miser?

    2) The poor and others who don't pay income taxes already pay taxes of other kinds, so while those streams may increase, they aren't new, and they aren't necessarily fair. (Same goes for drug dealers.) Also, if you want new tax streams that are avoided by black markets, legalize some products that are arbitrarily illegal, like pot.

    3) I don't think it would necessarily be easier, especially if there are different rates on different products. If we want to simplify taxes (something I agree with), there are ways to do that with the income tax that are pretty simple.

    And depending on how the taxes are collected, you could end up with a huge burden on either businesses or individuals.

    4) Why would much or all of the IRS go away? You still need to collect taxes and enforce payment.

    5) Highly skeptical of this argument. I've never met somebody who wanted to make less $ because of their income taxes.
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2011
  28. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Bolded part is absurd.

    Class warfare suits both sides of the aisle when convenient, it appears.
  29. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    But not self-proclaimed moral majority and other pubbies, huh, 13?
    Take off the partisan lenses some day -- you might be amazed at what you see.
  30. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    I am working under the assumption that regardless of the vehicle (consumption/income) that a wealthier person would “always” pay more tax wise. Is taking a percentage of what people consume less or more fair than taking portion of their income? If “my options” were a flat rate on income, a consumption based tax, or our marginal rate system now, the fairest way to divvy it up is either the flat rate or the consumption. With the flat rate its X% percent paid by everyone (fair), or you pay for your life style (fair). Yes everyone would be paying the same for the smaller, day to day goods and services. But to buy that new, nicer TV, the pool, the boat...the bigger ticket items will all cost more, and many only purchased by higher income earners, just only by those who choose to buy those items.

    I think everyone should pay something regardless of income. In my opinion the “fairest” way is grabbing 9% from someone making 28K ($2520) and from someone making 10M (900K) or taking 30% of what they both consume. Its seems those are both better to me that setting marginal (arbitrary) rates on income. Income Y in place X could be higher or lower (relative to cost of living) than in place A. Paying tax on consumption would remove that “unfairness”. Thus someone making 250K in Wichita KS and someone making 250K living in NYC either pay the same number, X% of 250K or pay for the lifestyle they lead. A person living a minimalistic lifestyle could pay less on on that 250K salary than a person making the same 250K in Wichita who buys the newest techy items, and upgrades their car every two years. In my opinion is both of those situations in “more fair” than what we have now.

    Regarding legalizing arbitrarily illegals items, Im all for that. Maybe that is just as likely as changing the current tax system. But in the absence of legalizing pot, a consumption tax on the pot dealer who makes nice money dealing, and doesnt work (thus no income tax) now pays taxes on what they spend, because they are buying things. Income taxes on dealers who dont have a legal income means they put “nothing” in.

    Agreed if you had different rates on goods and services, it would just be new numbers to learn. But you wouldnt be filling out a tax form at the end of the year, and adding this, subtracting that, taking into account these deduction and those write offs. It would be either flat rate (which is as simple as it gets) or I spent this many dollars and paid this much tax at POS, nothing foggy 8 months later.


    If much of the confusion and “red tape” regarding taxes went away, I assume most of the IRS (and accountants for that matter) would disappear. The gov. would have no justification for this huge department now because the role of that group would have changed drastically. No longer would you have huge amounts of people doing audits and the like, instead their role would be did person/business X pay Y? Could have that done by a much smaller group of people.

    5. Agreed, wasnt arguing it, just saying as a thought.

Share This Page