Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

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

  1. #1
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358

    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.

  2. #2
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    "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!!

  3. #3
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    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.

  4. #4
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    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.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 08-12-2011 at 11:48 AM.

  6. #6
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    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
    Last edited by Havakasha; 08-12-2011 at 02:25 PM.

  8. #8
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    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

  10. #10
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    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
    Last edited by Havakasha; 08-12-2011 at 03:17 PM.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •