- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Most Americans favor eliminating tax cuts for wealthy

Published: Wed, December 5, 2012 @ 7:11 p.m.


Americans prefer letting tax cuts expire for the country's top earners, as President Barack Obama insists, while support has declined for cutting government services to curb budget deficits, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows. Fewer than half the Republicans polled favor continuing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.

There's also a reluctance to trim Social Security, Medicare or defense programs, three of the biggest drivers of federal spending, the survey released Wednesday found. The results could strengthen Obama's hand in his fiscal cliff duel with Republicans, in which he wants to raise taxes on the rich and cut spending by less than the GOP wants.

As Obama and Republicans joust over ways to avoid tumbling over the cliff when the new year begins, the poll offers scant evidence that the public is willing to sacrifice much when it comes to specific cuts in the name of budget austerity.

Social Security, Medicare and defense account for just over half the $3.8 trillion the government is projected to spend this year. Voters typically voice support for deficit reduction but shy away from painful, detailed cuts to achieve it.

In the poll, 48 percent said tax cuts should expire in January on earnings over $250,000 but continue for lower incomes. An additional 32 percent said the tax cuts should continue for everybody, which has been the view of Republican lawmakers who say raising taxes on the wealthy would squelch their ability to create jobs. Thirteen percent said the tax cuts dating back to 2001 and 2003 should end for all.

"If you are fortunate and have some extra, you need to help those who don't," said Robin Keck, 49, of Golden Valley, Minn., who owns a framing business and supports ending tax cuts for the rich. "I believe people who have more money generally find more uses for it than putting other people to work."


1Ytownnative(1121 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

What he said x2 ^^^^^^

Suggest removal:

2IslandMike(764 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

There's also a reluctance to trim Social Security, Medicare or defense programs, three of the biggest drivers of federal spending.

We need to cut ALL government programs by 15%, let the Bush era tax cuts expire and raise taxes ON ALL Americans under age 65 by an additional 3% for the next two years. It's time to get out from under China's debt. You can blame Bush, you can blame Obama, but the FACT is that blaming any of the aforementioned will NOT solve the problem, it's time to take aim at the elephant in the living room.

In two years, we can then re-address the tax hikes and see if we can lower them back to our current rate. This will suck in the short term, but strengthen the economy as a whole moving forward. BOTH parties know what needs done, they're just playing politics as usual in DC.

Suggest removal:

3impdude(19 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

True maybe the rich could pay more taxes. But it would make sense for all americans pay a fair percentage as well.Have to cut spending to get our house in order . Short term pain for long term gain.Maybe a national sales tax might work better. We have it on gasoline and still buy it. That way if you got to have newest phone,shoes or whatever makes you happy you share the wealth with the government in your own special way.

Suggest removal:

4Letstryagain(218 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

A simple statement says our tax code is a mess.

When you consider raising taxes, remember that the effect is not limited to the taxpayer and government.

Taxes are an expense. If taxes go up, your plumber's cost go up, his price to you goes up. If taxes on your local grocery store go up, the owner of the store will raise prices,

If taxes go down, your plumber's cost goes down, placing him/her in a more competitive position. If a companies taxes go down, say an auto manufacturer, it places that company in a more competitive position.

As a country we can borrow some money to help us get into a more competitve position, but we can't borrow forever, and forever is on our doorstep. Not unlike your household, there are three choices, borriow to cover expenses, increase income to cover expenses, decrease expenses to reduce the need for income.

If most do not want to reduce expenses, or increase taxes (don't kid yourself, everyone's taxes are going up, not just the "rich" ) then the only other option is to increase income. This is done through policy initiatives that increase economic growth.

The "rich" are those that have, or control the means of production. They are the ones that own equipment, factories, intellectual property, or have the financial ability to acquire the same. If you tax them, they have less to invest. If you tax their production, they must raise prices in order to cover that expense. If they can go somewhere this expense is not as high, they will go there.

Our best answer is to increase growth and therefore revenue. The increase in growth will come from bot the consumer's ability to purchase, and the business's ability and willingness to expand. Higher taxes decrease the ability and willingness..

Suggest removal:

5exlonghorn(45 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Simple things that could be done to increase revenue and reduce spending. Elinimate Department of Energy,,Lots of $$$ - doesn't produce one BTU of energy. Why do earners stop paying into Social Security when their gross earnings exceed $74,000? Thats stupid! The money raised from "making the rich pay their fair share" must make a lot of people feel good. Bottom line is it is a lot like standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon and trying to fill it back up with a shovel.

Suggest removal:

6HappyBob(360 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

The social security ceiling is currently now more like 106,000 not 74K.

If the ceiling was eliminated SS would be solvent for the next 75 years. Wouldn't that solve at least one problem?

Suggest removal:

7ulistenup(95 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

It's been shown again and again that raising taxes on the rich does not increase revenue. The tax rates on everyone should be left alone.

What should be done is this: cut the military budget in half. We spend more money than any other country on defense - with most of it wasted.

We've got to see beyond making the world in our image.

Suggest removal:

8Lifes2Short(3882 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

"I believe people who have more money generally find more uses for it than putting other people to work."

Cut the big corporations tax breaks and watch all the jobs go overseas. And you can't really blame them.

Suggest removal:

9mrblue(1175 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Going after the rich to pay more sounds good, but it is not the answer. How about a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage? How about a national sales tax--if you buy, you pay. And by the way, Social Security is not an entitlement, it is our money, so leave it alone. The government needs to pay back the $$$ it stole to finance their stupid wars. If memory serves me, it all started with Lyndon Johnson. (please correct me if I am wrong). This country has a bunch of self serving idiots in D.C.and the worst part is that they keep getting re-elected.

Suggest removal:

10jojuggie(1729 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Hey Island Mike - sending posts this AM at 3AM, yesterday at 1:17 AM & 3:11AM. You can't sleep. What's bothering you. I thought the BHO's win would make you sleep soundly.

Suggest removal:

1176Ytown(1374 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Our house is on FIRE people!!! Where is the leadership in the country?

Taxing wealth at 100% would fund the government for only 2 1/2 months. Obama is still talking about INCREASES IN SPENDING not cuts in spending! Amazing!

Our national debt clock is over SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS. We're spending more than we take in. We're adding $1 million per MINUTE to our deficit spending $1 TRILLION more than we take in. We borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Interest rates are their lowest in history when the rates on our short term loans go up...we're screwed!


How much is a trillion dollars?
There are 1000 MILLIONS in a billion
There are 1000 BILLIONS in a trillion
There are one MILLION MILLIONS in a trillion

We are currently at a debt of $51,872 per citizen , $142, 250 per taxpayer of the national debt...not personal debt. Our personal debt of $50,324 per person is less than what we owe as a national debt.

Look at the bottom of the debt clock page for the social security debt. $1,060,251 per taxpayer. (that's millions folks). What part of BROKE don't people understand?

These numbers are mind-numbing!

Does our president think the American people are stupid. Apparently so, because he's still thinking that taxing the rich is going to solve this problem. It's going to take serious budget CUTS and serious changes in tax revenue.

Don't be fooled. We are all going to pay.

Suggest removal:

12Lifes2Short(3882 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago


"Does our president think the American people are stupid."

They are stupid, because they think that taxing the 2% of the wealthy will solve everything. smh.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes