23 polls say yes, at least in preference to increased deficits and further cuts.
Addendum: It’s not getting much mainstream media coverage, but there is a bit of a counter tea party underway this year.
Recent Comments
 | Eric Kirk on March against Monsanto this… |
 | "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
 | bolithio on March against Monsanto this… |
| Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 19, 2011 at 7:41 am
Fred Mangels
There’s nothing saying you can’t write a check and voluntarily send it in to the I.R.S or Franchise Tax Board, Eric. If you really want to pay higher taxes, then do it. There’s nothing stopping you.
Oh, that’s right. It’s the guy in the tax bracket above you that’s not paying enough. Not you.
And that goes with those in the polls that supposedly are saying the want higher taxes, although I don’t know that all of them are really saying that.
August 19, 2011 at 7:54 am
Eric Kirk
Point is Fred, it’s what the majority wants. There’s no doubt about that. Not that they actually want to pay more taxes, but they see it as necessary and preferable to the cuts-only position for deficit reduction.
If you want to look at any of the polls in more detail, the links are through here.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2341/23-polls-say-people-support-higher-taxes-reduce-deficit
August 19, 2011 at 8:00 am
Kym Kemp
My husband and I were just discussing how, while we don’t WANT to pay higher taxes, we’re willing to do it. People and our infrastructure our suffering. The amount of kids per classroom is wrong. Instead of sending off a check to the IRS or the county which would surely cause confusion and not necessarily go where it is needed the most, we donate locally.
However, after watching last night’s Daily Show, I’m even more ready to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Watch the first few minutes. It is not very funny but it is very clear.
August 19, 2011 at 8:09 am
Bolithio
Im with Kym. I am OK with taxes going to “entitlements”. Since the wealthy are apparently “entitled” to make billions utilizing our infrastructure, national commerce and workforce, its a no brainier for the working man that they should pay a significant share. We all know that they can still make billions while contributing to the dignity of the lower class.
August 19, 2011 at 8:41 am
Ernie's Place
Some people are already paying way too many taxes, but some are paying way, way too little. Altogether, my opinion would be to consentrate on putting people to work. That would be the best way to increase tax revenue.
But, I’m beginging to sound like a broked record aren’t I.
August 19, 2011 at 11:41 am
Eric Kirk
It looks like there’s some push back in town hall meetings on the tax issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-road-tour-strikes-back-at-gops-stand-against-raising-taxes/2011/08/18/gIQAkzJcOJ_story.html?hpid=z1
Love this clip.
I just have one question for you tonight,” said another. “Did you sign Grover Norquist’s pledge to never raise taxes?”—referring to the promise that has been signed by most congressional Republicans, including Hultgren.
“Don’t you have the confidence in your own ability in Congress to make up your own mind? You need Grover Norquist to tell you?” the man continued.
August 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Not A Native
Amazingly, I think Fred’s partly right. Most people support higher taxes believing it would be devised so they won’t be paying more.
But at the same time, I believe most people would support paying higher taxes themselves if they felt they would be getting something they want from the increase.
But the political fact is, deficit hawks are making fiscal policy. Increased taxes wouldn’t be going for new things but would simply keep the current things funded. When faced with that tax increase plan, I think most people(like Kym) would be against personally paying more.
They would see it as either a ‘bailout’ for things they feel they’ve already paid for(like social security and roads) or a continuation to fund stuff they don’t want(like welfare or the military) or else things ‘The Gubmint’ shouldn’t be doing in the first place(foreign aid, global warming mitigation).
So really, its back to the question of what should Government be responsible for? Since the 1960′s, people in the US have become extremely polarized on that question. I don’t think focusing on tax policy is an effective(helpful) way to reconcile the polarized public. It just arouses people to more stongly assert extreme positions. My simplistic answer is we need much stronger leadership, patriots who will sacrifice their personal ambitions and popularity to withstand withering criticism.
August 19, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Jim
Where to start? Clearly taxes are too low, considering Buffet pays less as a percentage of his income than anyone else in his office making less than $100K. Also look at his discussion of where taxes used to be (hello 70% marginal rates on the top brackets of the 50′s, 60′s, 70′s and early 80′s) and incentives today. Our society functioned much better and was much more equal with high marginal rates.
You all must be making some serious dough, as Kym’s link to Stewart shows, the bottom 50% of people in this country own 1.5% of the wealth. This means they make so little, they don’t pay taxes. The next 40% of people, who I assume are the range that posts to this board, pay about 50% of taxes, but only have about 15% of the country’s wealth. So, taxing where the money is, that top 10%, rather than the bottom 50% that doesn’t have any money to begin with, is the only way forward.
Ernie, I totally agree, but what Republicans are talking about jobs right now? Oh right, none. They only talk jobs if it benefits their politics. Obama wants to get more jobs, but the only way to actually do that is to employ people in public works beefing up our crumbling infrastructure. This can be done by raising the gas tax, raising income taxes, or borrowing at 2% interest (I think we are closer to 1% now though). I’d argue financing such work and improvements at 2% is a smart investment, and if it improves aggregate demand and infrastructure enough, can get the economy humming enough to more than pay off the debt incurred (think taking out loans for grad school at low interest so that you earn more later in your career to pay them off and have a better life).
I’d say we have the worst independent, free media in the world, since none of these facts are ever discussed in response to Republican hostage taking.
August 20, 2011 at 6:17 am
Fred Mangels
Those of you who’d like to send more money to the state might soon have an easy way to do it:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/20/3849753/want-to-give-surplus-money-to.html
August 20, 2011 at 8:33 am
Unk John
Perhaps Eric’s rhetorical question could better be phrased as, “Do we see the need for higher taxes?” I think that several people here have expressed the view that increased revenue is at least part of the solution.
Ernie is, of course, correct. An immediate solution would be to put everyone back to work. How do we do that? Apparently, depending on the “job creators” isn’t working. Why? They don’t have to create jobs here in the U.S.
Both Republicans and Democrats have created a situation that allows for companies to ship jobs overseas where they can get cheap labor. We used to have tariffs and laws that protected American jobs. That structure is at this time no longer in place.
Before the early eighties, we had a tax code that essentially told the wealthy that they would either invest their money in AMERICAN companies or they would pay high taxes. Furthermore, those jobs would be on American soil. It didn’t seem to hurt their pocketbooks much.
When I first entered the workforce, the maximum per year paid into Social Security was low enough that the average person saw an increase in his/her take home pay around October. They didn’t take out FICA for the rest of the year. When Ronald Reagan took office he formed the Greenspan Commission because of concerns about the solvency of SS. Part of their solution raised the maximum contribution enough that everyone in the middle class would pay for the entire year. Now, a salary has to be in excess of about $109,000 to reach the maximum. That means that someone making millions per year stops paying into FICA sometime in January of each year. Somehow, that seems to fit somewhere into the definition of “regressive taxation.”
I would prefer not to hear rantings about why the rich should pay taxes for something they don’t need, since they can afford to pay for their own retirement. Do we really need to go over that again and again?