Taxing the Rich Favored (by large majority) Over Cuts to Medicare

Thats what i have argued for a long time.

Poll: Taxing the rich favored over Medicare cuts

President Obama's approach won out over Paul Ryan's in a new survey. | AP Photos Close
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 4/20/11 6:10 AM EDT

Most Americans oppose the big spending cuts that many in Washington see as necessary to bring down the budget deficit, a new poll suggests, but they do support one idea for deficit reduction that President Barack Obama has pushed for years – raising taxes on the rich.

Only small slivers of the group of Americans surveyed for a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Wednesday said they support cuts to Medicare and Medicaid – 21 percent and 30 percent, respectively – and cuts to defense spending get the support of 42 percent of those surveyed. Seventy-eight percent of Americans are opposed to Medicare cuts, while 69 percent are opposed to Medicaid cuts.


The potential solution to the debt crisis that gets the strongest support is raising taxes on Americans who make $250,000 or more annually, an idea that Obama campaigned on in 2008, backed away from last year to make a legislative deal with Republicans, but has returned to as he’s begun discussing his vision for long-term fiscal responsibility. Of those surveyed, 72 percent said they support tax increases on people with incomes of more than $250,000, including 54 percent who strongly support them. Twenty-seven percent are opposed, including 17 percent strongly.

Another potential remedy to the debt crisis gets less support — 45 percent of those surveyed said they support raising taxes on all Americans by a small percentage while making small cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Fifty-three percent of Americans are opposed to such a plan, including 40 percent who say they are strongly opposed.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1K41TthsP

The top 1% already pay 32% of all income taxes, and 47% pay no income tax. Seems like the rich are already being taxed well, no? Pretty startling statistics. That leaves 21% to pay 68% of all income taxes. Now I understand my tax bill.

If Obama had a brain, he would work toward overhauling the income tax system such that he could "extract" a little more from these "rich" you lefists seem to dwell on. You see what I'm saying? Don't espouse "taxing the rich" (it is inflamatory to some), but espouse a new system. It's nuance, but most American's would agree that we need a better system.

Maybe something like this

< $10,000 Zero
$30,000 2%
$50,000 4%
and so on

$150,000 10%
$500,000 13%
$1,000,000 15%.....

No deductions. No nothing. Though, it's too simple, it would put people out of work in BOTH the private and public sectors.

No, the rich arent "taxed well". Dont know how many times i have to show you.
The upper tax rate should go back to what it was under Clinton. I believe you
agreed in the past.
My grandfather paid 80% in income tax. The rate today for the upper incomes is hardly too high.

If you have been reading you would know about Obama's interest in reforming the tax system.
You "rightists" prefer to demean him. I believe he has quite a lot of brain power.
You can call it what you want but it still means more taxes for the wealthy. As this thread demonstrates
"taxing the rich" isnt as "inflammatory" as you are trying to suggest.

Rich Paying Less Income Tax, Half of Households Pay None
Politics
Apr 17, 2011 – 11:59 PM


WASHINGTON - Still scrambling to file your taxes? You'll probably take little consolation in hearing that the super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago. And nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

"No, the rich arent "taxed well""

You would know!! With all your fancy accountants............ I bet you're getting a refund lol.

1% covering 32% is a lot Lloyd. Maybe not by comparison, but by absolutes, it is quite impressive.

And "taxing the rich" is inflammatory. To me, it insinuates a mob mentality - they got it, we need to take it. Sorry. If Obama was truly interested in reforming the income tax system, he wouldn't have spoken about taxing the rich in his speech the other day - claiming that since they are rich, they can afford it (or something like that). If it is not inflammatory, than it is certainly polarizing. Tomatoe, tom(ah)toe.

Here is the compromise, and I know you don't like that. Conservatives all cry "47% of Americans have no "skin in the game"". Liberals all cry "tax the rich". A progressive system as noted above is the answer. All Americans have "skin in the game", and higher incomes are progressively taxed a little more.

The "rich" know they have had it real good.
My accountant would laugh real hard at your description of him as "fancy". Far from it.
Not going to argue over semantics around "tax the rich". All i know is this latest poll says
72% (?) would rather do it then cut medicare.
Obama is truly interested in reforming the tax system. Problem is the Republicans have a different idea about what reform means.
Hopefully they can reach some kind of compromise. Its very complicated stuff.

And look at me cutting right through all of the complication...................................... .............

I don't have an accountant, so yours is most fancy.

Your "accountant" is way fancier than mine. Lol.

Maybe, but sometimes "effectiveness" is a good trade off. Clearly, mine isn't effective or I wouldn't be pissing away 28 grand in income tax to the IRS whilst living in a 1200 square foot ranch with young 2 kids wondering if I can afford the next daycare payment.

Carried interest.

Atypical - I'm not exactly sure what "carried interest" means, but thanks for not calling me a idealogue. I do think Lloyd might be avoiding the real conversation, but such is life.

So the top 10% pay 71% of income taxes, and 47% pay none. That means that the "middle" 43% pay 39%. This seems fair, but I do understand your (collective) point of view about the "filthy rich". I believe there is a clear distinction between "the rich" and the "filthy rich" with the "filthy rich" being the top 1% previously cited. The data appears to show that tax levels seem to "stall" for those 1%.

"As this thread demonstrates "taxing the rich" isnt as "inflammatory" as you are trying to suggest"

Like I said, it may not be inflammatory, but it certainly polarizing.

Here's something interesting; try to find a video clip of Obama's speech a week ago where he talks about taxing the rich. The only one I found was on Fox News LOL. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4651636.

You really ought to watch the link - especially when Obama says that the rich WANT to pay more tax. Hmmm, kinda like GE I suppose.

Carried interest.

Tax The Rich? Good Luck With That
By WALTER WILLIAMS
Posted 04/11/2011 06:31 PM ET

I've often said that I wish there were some humane way to get rid of the rich. If you asked why, I'd answer that getting rid of the rich would save us from distraction by leftist hustlers promoting the politics of envy.

Not having the rich to fret over might enable us to better focus our energies on what's in the best interest of the 99.99% of the rest of us. Let's look at some facts about the rich laid out by Bill Whittle citing statistics on his RealClearPolitics video "Eat the Rich."

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money?

According to IRS statistics, roughly 2% of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money.

All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25%, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100% tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners.

Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to the Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August.

The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.

But let's stick with the rich and ask a few questions. Politicians, news media people and leftists in general entertain what economists call a zero-elasticity view of the world. That's just fancy economic jargon for a view that government can impose a tax and people will behave after the tax just as they behaved before the tax, and the only change is more government revenue.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/...ss_igoogle_cnn

How do you like my new avatar?

1% pay 40% of all income tax
10% pay 70% and lastly
50% pay 97%

Tax the rich? It's happening. Is this not good enough? Or do you want to focus on that 1% whilst the remaining 49% of us get ransacked?