Poll: Majority Want Tax Increase for Wealthy and Deep Spending Cuts

New CNN Poll: Majority want tax increase for wealthy and deep spending cuts
By: CNN Political Unit
Washington (CNN) - Most Americans want a special congressional committee tasked with drafting a long-term solution to the nation's mounting federal deficits to include tax hikes for the wealthy and businesses and deep cuts in domestic spending, according to a new national survey.
A CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday also indicates that the public doesn't want the super committee to propose major changes to Social Security and Medicare or increase taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans.
Read full results (PDF).

Under the debt ceiling deal passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama last week, a panel of 12 legislators - six Democrats and six Republicans, equally divided between the House and Senate - will be created to try to work out $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction after an initial round of more than $900 billion in spending cuts.
If the committee fails to reach agreement or Congress fails to pass whatever package it recommends, a trigger mechanism will enact further across-the-board cuts in government spending, including for the military.
According to the poll, 63 percent say the super committee should call for increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36 percent disagreeing. And by a 57 to 40 percent margin they say the committee's deficit reduction proposal should include major cuts in domestic spending.
But cuts in defense spending get a mixed review: Forty-seven percent would like the committee to include major cuts in military spending, with 53 percent saying no to such cuts.

"while nearly nine in 10 don't want any increase in taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans."

Ho, including me!!!! In fact, a reduction would be appropriate!!

From what you've said you oppose tax hikes on the wealhy. If that's the case your basically aligned with the Tea Party and opposed to what most Americans (incuding me) want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

From what you've said you oppose tax hikes on the wealhy. If that's the case your basically aligned with the Tea Party and opposed to what most Americans (incuding me) want.

---

"while nearly nine in 10 don't want any increase in taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans."

I guess 9/10 of us are tea partiers.

Tea partiers dont want any rise in taxes on the wealthy. Just like you.
Thats what THIS thread was about. Lol.

Obama has reduced taxes on middle class and has no intention of doing so in the future.

Straw dogs are your forte.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Tea partiers dont want any rise in taxes on the wealthy. Just like you.
Thats what THIS thread was about. Lol.

Obama has reduced taxes on middle class and has no intention of doing so in the future.

Straw dogs are your forte.

---

I've said it a hundred times - I don't care about taxing the rich. Go right ahead. I don't want to pay any more thank you, and I will. We've gone over that.

I do have a problem with those who say "tax the rich". Minding your own business is a core belief of mine. Looking at the financial affairs of others an making judgement as if you have some moral authority is, well, immoral. It reeks of greed, avorice and jealousy. To me, you judging others, looking at them and wanting them to pay more is just dreadfully wrong.

Secondly, it's demogoguery plain and simple. The liberal left uses this to piss off the sheeple and get their votes. That's as convoluted as they come.

I am glad you understand that middle class taxes will go up under Obama lol.

You have been very ambiguous on this issue. I can look up your past responses when i have time to prove it.


Actually here is a hint of that ambiguity. "i dont care about taxing the rich."
"I do have a problem with those who say 'tax the rich'.

Are you FOR rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the rich and or bringing the top tax rate back to
what it was under Clinton?

As Ronald Reagan said. "Its about simple fairness."

It has nothing to do with greed, avarice, jealousy, moral superiority etc. Those are all straw dogs. Its about public policy and the need to balance revenues and cuts.

Obama has lowered taxes and wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. David Stockman, the budget director under Reagan says that we cant afford those tax cuts and should rescindthem on all people.

I think it is you who have seriously demagogued the issue.

Are you ok with raising taxes on the rich since taxes are now the lowest in 60 years? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

You have been very ambiguous on this issue. I can look up your past responses when i have time to prove it.

Actually here is a hint of that ambiguity. "i dont care about taxing the rich."
"I do have a problem with those who say 'tax the rich'.

Are you FOR rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the rich and or bringing the top tax rate back to
what it was under Clinton?

As Ronald Reagan said. "Its about simple fairness."

It has nothing to do with greed, avarice, jealousy, moral superiority etc. Those are all straw dogs. Its about public policy and the need to balance revenues and cuts.

Obama has lowered taxes and wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. David Stockman, the budget director under Reagan says that we cant afford those tax cuts and should rescindthem on all people.

I think it is you who have seriously demagogued the issue.

Are you ok with raising taxes on the rich since taxes are now the lowest in 60 years? lol

---

Go ahead and you'll see. It's been written before "I don't give a shit about taxing the rich".

Public policy is gutting this family. I did the math for you last week. If government would only confiscate $40k instead of $50k I could save $180,000 in 18 years for my children's education.

Immorality of Progressive Income Tax

Many people assume that I don't like income taxes because I am frugal. This is not the case. I despise income tax because I believe them to be immoral.

This may be blasphemous to some Libertarians, but I think that a certain level of taxation is necessary and must be allowed in order for the federal government to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities. The level of this taxation should be proportional to what is actually needed to perform its legitimate, Constitutional functions. Now where me and many other Libertarians will agree is my feeling that a progressive income tax is unethical and immoral way to collect such taxes.

I am certain that most people would agree that stealing would not be considered a moral act, even if what was stolen was given to someone who needed it more than its original owner. Imagine someone walking into your home and taking $10,000 off your table, walking out the door, and giving your $10,000 to someone else. There are few who would stand for this, but every year we allow the federal government to essentially do the same thing with little more than a grumble on tax day. We would fight off a burglar in our home, but do nothing to fight off the government burglar who pilfers from our coffers.

Now some may say that this analogy is absurd since by living within the border of the U.S. you have consented to the taking of your money. I would agree that by living somewhere you are essentially signing a contract, but the contract of the U.S., the Constitution, has long ago been voided by the federal government's breach of that contract. If they do not act within the authority given to them by our most sacred contract, then I have not consented to them taking my money.

So how can taxes be collected in a moral manner? A moral tax would need to be neither progressive or regressive, but instead neutral and then that revenue would need to used to further "legitimate government interest" within the limits of power and authority granted by the Constitution. I believe sales tax on all end products except for food, housing, some transportation, and a short list of other necessities, would be the most neutral of taxes. Such taxes would end the need for a progressive tax and would end the embedded regressive taxes that we all pay.

Since the federal government's true authority lies in maintaining a safe and secure marketplace, those who consumed the most from this marketplace would pay the most for the federal government's service. A poor family who benefits the least from the marketplace would pay the least for the federal government's service. Those who wished not to pay taxes would be able to opt out by not consuming. It only counts as a contract if you have some reasonable way of not signing that contract. A sales tax would create a continuously renewed contract. Each time you consumed you would basically be resigning the contract with the government.

If the federal government acted within its actual Constitutional power and authority, the individual states and local municipalities would be able to create a more efficient social contract, one that citizens could give their informed consent to. If an individual state or local government believed a progressive tax was necessary to provide for the basic welfare of its citizens it could do so as long as it was acting within the power and authority granted to them by their state constitution or local charter. While I believe it to be impossible to give informed consent to such things on the federal level, I do not think it is impossible on a smaller scale. On a smaller scale you can hold the state or local government accountable for any breach of the contract or you could remove you informed consent by moving to a different state or municipality.

I underline informed because I believe consent does not exist without being informed consent. The actions of the federal government are often to far removed from our lives for us to hold them accountable and without accountability there can be no informed consent and therefore no consent at all. That is why we have the Constitution. As long as the federal government acts within the confines of the authority and power granted by the Constitution, than as citizens have given our informed consent. They have not done so in a very long time, so anything they take is without consent and therefore it is stealing and immoral.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article520...ncome_Tax.html

I asked if you were in FAVOR of raising the tax rate for the wealthy. You know IN FAVOR? or are you
just going to say " i dont give a shit about taxing the rich" and then complain about people who are in favor of raising the tax rate the rich. lmfao

You are a real piece of work. It seems clear to me that raising taxes on the wealthy
is somehting that you deep down oppose.
Hence your criticism of progressive tax rate.

Let me quess? You are for the flat tax? Is that CORRECT?

To blame public policy for gutting the middle class is pure demagoguery. Listen to Nouriel
Roubini talk about this. Obviously you are going to disagree with him but....


http://www.marketwatch.com/video/ass...F-DF2F3E2F8735

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

I asked if you were in FAVOR of raising the tax rate for the wealthy. You know IN FAVOR? or are you
just going to say " i dont give a shit about taxing the rich" and then complain about people who are in favor of raising the tax rate the rich. lmfao

You are a real piece of work. It seems clear to me that raising taxes on the wealthy
is somehting that you deep down oppose.
Hence your criticism of progressive tax rate.

Let me quess? You are for the flat tax? Is that CORRECT?

To blame public policy for gutting the middle class is pure demagoguery. Listen to Nouriel
Roubini talk about this. Obviously you are going to disagree with him but....


http://www.marketwatch.com/video/ass...F-DF2F3E2F8735

---

I find it immoral to suggest that another pay more or less. It would be hypocritical of me to say that I want to pay less taxes then say I "favor" more taxes for someone else. I'll speak only for myself; as it should be. If the liberal "rich" want to contribute, they can. Hell, I'm half tempted to cut the government a check so I can say that I did and laugh at you and your tax accountant even more.

I leave the hypocracy for you.

Just because I note that the liberal / left mechanism is demogoguery doesn't mean you have to use the term as well.

Public policy IS gutting the middle class. $50000 a year over 10 years is $500,000. My net worth isn't that much, and won't be given that I'm raising two children.

Roubini simply couldnt disagree more with your position on what is happening with the economy.
I think his analysis sounds much more credible than yours. It seems to me he is looking at the
facts on the ground rather than applying a preconceived point of view about how things work. Check it out. Quite interesting.

Roubini Warns of Global Recession Risk
http://www.marketwatch.com/video/ass...F-DF2F3E2F8735


What was this thread about? Ah yes. Some facts that cant be disputed. Not something that S&L handles too well. lol

Poll: Majority Want Tax Increase for Wealthy and Deep Spending Cuts
New CNN Poll: Majority want tax increase for wealthy and deep spending cuts

Washington (CNN) - Most Americans want a special congressional committee tasked with drafting a long-term solution to the nation's mounting federal deficits to include tax hikes for the wealthy and businesses and deep cuts in domestic spending, according to a new national survey.
A CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday also indicates that the public doesn't want the super committee to propose major changes to Social Security and Medicare or increase taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans.
Read full results (PDF).

Under the debt ceiling deal passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama last week, a panel of 12 legislators - six Democrats and six Republicans, equally divided between the House and Senate - will be created to try to work out $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction after an initial round of more than $900 billion in spending cuts.
If the committee fails to reach agreement or Congress fails to pass whatever package it recommends, a trigger mechanism will enact further across-the-board cuts in government spending, including for the military.
According to the poll, 63 percent say the super committee should call for increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36 percent disagreeing. And by a 57 to 40 percent margin they say the committee's deficit reduction proposal should include major cuts in domestic spending.
But cuts in defense spending get a mixed review: Forty-seven percent would like the committee to include major cuts in mil

I find it immoral to suggest that another pay more or less.

It would be hypocritical of me to say that I want to pay less taxes then say I "favor" more taxes for someone else. I'll speak only for myself; as it should be.

Don't worry, taxes are going up, and they will go up on everyone, and you still won't be satisfied.

The key to the nature of progressivism is the realization that the size and scope of government and the freedom of the individual do not stand in diametrical opposition, as conservatives and libertarians would have one believe. Instead, the progressive vision of government is simple: government is the entity most responsible for ensuring equality of opportunity. The children of the rich will always have a leg up on the children of the poor: they will often be sent to the best private schools. Their parents will be able to afford to send them to the best universities, regardless of a scholarship. When they graduate from college, they will have easier access to employment because of the connections that so often come hand-in-hand with money and prestige. The government can never mandate equality, but it can at least offer an opportunity for advancement. Our tax dollars fund public schools to ensure that everyone has a chance. Our tax dollars fund scholarships and grants to ever so slightly reduce the unfairness that makes one child unable to go to a good university while another with no better qualifications can go, owing to nothing but the fortunate circumstance of parentage. The same principle is at the core of a progressive mindset regarding the relationship between a government and its people. For instance, government can promote equality for women by creating regulations and laws that ensure equal pay for equal work, but it can do the same for the LGBT community by eliminating the regulations that discriminate against them. People should similarly be free to breathe clean air, and free to feel sure that their employers have taken adequate precaution to ensure that as employees, they will not get maimed at the workplace.