People Still Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit by a 2-to-1 Margin
I posted an earlier version of this table a week ago, but there have been several new polls confirming the conclusion, so I have brought it up to date.
Can/Should the Budget Deficit Be Reduced with Spending Cuts Alone
or Should There Be Some Increase in Taxes?
Poll | Date | Some/All Taxes | Spending Cuts Alone |
7-19 | 66 | 32 | |
7-19 | 62 | 27 | |
7-18 | 69 | 28 | |
7-14 | 67 | 25 | |
7-13 | 73 | 20 | |
6-9 | 61 | 37 | |
5-13 | 64 | 33 | |
5-12 | 61 | 27 | |
4-29 | 76 | 20 | |
USC/LA Times (California only) | 4-25 | 62 | 33 |
4-22 | 66 | 19 | |
4-20 | 62 | 36 | |
3-15 | 67 | 31 | |
12-12 | 62 | 36 | |
Average | 66 | 29 |
Bookmark/Search this post with
Well, I guess in the
Well, I guess in the Republican Party math book, one Grover Norquist = 70 or 80 million ordinary American voters.
In any case, it appears that for the average GOP politician, rejecting any and all tax increases has become as essential today as defending segregation was for the average Southern Democratic politician, circa 1950.
taxes
Mr. Barlett, the question polled was asinine. The issue is not whether taxes should be increased, but instead who should pay more taxes. So, I suggest the following: "Would you be willing to pay more taxes to help reduce the budget deficit?"
Perhaps . . .
But, then polling on the question of "Should government cut spending to reduce the deficit" should be revised to "Would you be willing to accept smaller Social Security or Medicare payments to help reduce the budget deficit?"
You will get the same answer as your proposed question - an overwhelming no.
The point I am trying to make is that no one likes their taxes to go up and no one likes the government programs they benefit by to be slashed.
The politicians have an obligation to do the right thing despite what the polls say even if that means they are voted out of office.
Inflate Away's response to
Inflate Away's response to Bartlett is - choosing my words carefully here - asinine. The central issue that is holding up an increase in the debt ceiling is whether there ought to be any increase in tax revenues as part of a deal. (OK, I'm buying into the ninny's view that we ought to tie the debt ceiling to some remedy for the budget deficit here. My apologies.) House Republicans won't tolerate questions of who ought to be taxed, because such questions allow for the possibility of increased tax revenues, so however much Inflate Away moans about it, real policy making is not currently involved with who ought to be taxed. If actual policy depends on the question of whether to increase revenues, then polling the public on that question is pretty clearly in order, even if it doesn't fit Inflate Away's personal asinine agenda.
My comment was simply that
My comment was simply that the question of "whether taxes should be increased," by itself, means nothing. Many people are saying they are all for a tax increase, so long as it is only the wealthy who have to bear it.
We can play this game forever
I want to reiterate my point. "Whether spending should be cut", by itself means nothing as well. Many people are saying that they are all for government spending to be cut, so long as someone else's government program is impacted.
The financial problems America faces are severe, potentially the worst in its history. To solve them will require higher taxes and cuts to the military to be sponsored by Republicans, and spending cuts and reductions in entitlements to be sponsored by Democrats. It will take the postponement of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare benefits for boomers as well as a reduction in benefits provided, plus the end of pork-barrel politics. It calls, in short, for sacrifice FROM EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN. The alternative is disaster, and the end of America.
I've been keeping an eye on
I've been keeping an eye on local elections that involve a tax increases. As this state voted for McCain and is a hot bed of tea party folks it is rather surprising to see how easily the measures pass. People have no problem raising taxes on themselves if it is for something they value. so I tend to take the polls at face value and would like to see some proof that they aren't reflecting reality from those that question them.
Seems like two questions
Seems like two questions here.
One -- local taxes/programs are qualitatively different than federal. The tea party protests started as a protest against the corruption of the Wall St bailouts - eg http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2137825 by a guy who voted for Obama. It has resonated with small business folks (the true GOP voting base even though the RNC doesn't understand that anymore - and even many Dems who aren't interested in the class-warfare diversion) who have seen that corruption in so many other areas of the federal government over the years/decades. If one is angry at one's local government, one still has some element of power/control over it. Voting for a local tax increase is not also simultaneously surrendering complete control over how the money is used. The federal stuff is completely out of control -- and nor do elections really matter or change things one whit. THAT is the source of uncompromising opposition to sending one penny more to DC until after they clean up their down-to-their-bones corruption. DC is simply not trustworthy. The second they divert attention to taxes, they divert attention from the real problem. Americans aren't the source of the problem here. The federal government is. If you actually want to understand "tea party folks", turn off the TV, ignore the commentariat and instead talk to some of your neighbors.
Two - Mr Bartlett is spinning these poll numbers to his own preexisting bugaboos and agenda. Click on the Gallup poll for a more accurate (IMO) breakdown of raw results. And a "tea party" interpretation of the Gallup poll would add a bit of "show me first" on the spending side -- since the federal government never delivers on "spending cuts" and has a long history of playing Orwellian word-games with the term.
raising taxes to reduce deficit
@Inflate Away: Your rephrasing of the question is even more asinine and is also misleading vis-a-vis the proposals from the Democrats: those proposals have been to raise taxes on the WEALTHY, and so asking the man-in-the-street if HE would be willing to pay more taxes is emphatically NOT the question to ask.
Can you please help me?
Hi Bruce, a comment on Capital Gains and Games said the following: Congress consistently approved less spending that Reagan requested in his budget proposals. So the notion that Reagan was suckered into agreeing to the 1982 tax increases based on the idea that spending would be cut is ridiculous. Spending *was* cut below the level Reagan wanted.
Certainly could make the 2012
Certainly could make the 2012 election a clear one. Well it would if we still actually had competitive elections/districts in this country.
And however much you're trying to spin those results into something that they are not, such an election will likely be very competitive.
Cut the Military, Deficit or No
It consumes 20% of outlays roughly the same as social security. It is based on unwarranted influence, which comes from socialized profits and inflated wages of the working part of the military industry complex.
The requirements are for an empire wholey unrelated to the US constitution, and the things it buys are most expensive solutions for tactics that are rooted in WW I, industrial war with no adverary.
When you cut; think who, and how many are hurt.
The common defense is supported at 20% of the current gold padded defintion of security spending.
The fewer harmed and the least impact on society.
US cannot afford security defined by unwarranted influence.
Let's eliminate the step-up of basis of capital gains at death
Page 252 of the OMB Analytical Perspectives of the FY2012 budget (see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-PER.pdf) gives a handy table of income tax expenditures. The third most costly (after tax free employer contributions to heath benefits and the mortgage interest deduction) is the step-up of basis of capital gains at death. As I'm sure most of this blog's readers know, this means that even though if you sold your assets the day before your death you might owe lots of capital gains tax, your heirs can sell them the day after your death and would owe no capital gains tax. The cost to the taxpayers is around 700 billion dollars over 10 years.
It seems apparent that almost all of this break goes to wealthy people -- accumulating large capital gains is perhaps the most common way to become wealthy. I couldn't find any justification for this tax expenditure -- perhaps someone could enlighten me. Maybe it is that estate tax might have to be paid on the assets, so the step-up avoids double taxation. In any case, the treasury would gain $700B over 10 years by just eliminating the step-up (i.e. by keeping the original cost basis for inherited assets). I suppose there's even an argument to be made the the cost basis of inherited assets should be zero, as, after all, that's what the heir paid for the assets. My guess is that would raise trillions.
This seems like real money, especially as compared to corporate jet depreciation schedules. Why is there no rhetoric from the left aimed at this expenditure? Is it just because it's a little hard to explain?
Our newest political leaders
Our newest political leaders are playing Russian Roulette with our credit rating and live a fantasy that Selective Default won't affect us - sad since they actually met yesterday with Standards and Poors. You have to wonder what the hell they are thinking.
On the face of it the Tea Party's agenda could seem nobel - however under the hood they are taking us down a sad and dangerous SHORT-TERM path. They are the child in the back seat that ask at the beginning of a long trip if we are there yet.
If the US is downgraded next week due to not increasing the debt ceiling - the Tea Party's self inflicted actions will emlininate their political existence.
However the impact of the United States Govt (risk-free) finances, soundly run Municipal Govts (those that are AAA) and every leading US corp being downgraded will be a momumentally sad moment with far reaching ramifications. The only positive will be that the Tea Party will have the smaller govt they seek but with a much smaller economy that nobody seeks.
At this point, we are bordering on treason.
At this late hour please send the children to bed and let the adults figure it out.
Bruce under-reports again to get to his conclusion
Sorry, Bruce, but the polling doesn't ask the right followup questions:
1. "Can/Should the Budget Deficit Be Reduced with Spending Cuts Alone
or Should There Be Some Increase in Taxes?" Your data suggest a majority answer "yes."
The pollsters should ask:
2. "Should YOUR taxes be raised or tax deductions eliminated to reduce the budget deficit?" Guess at what the answer will be.
Gallup asked a good question in a poll: "Which concerns you more: (A) the govt doesn't raise the debt ceiling and economic crisis ensues or (B)govt raises ceiling but without plans for major cuts in future spending?"
If you answered (B), you're with 55% of Americans (vs 35% answering (A)).
Conclusion: Americans are smart enough to know that promises of future spending cuts are as easy to avoid and delay as the toothless Gramm-Rudman-Hollings rules in the 1980s. CUT, CAP AND BALANCE with IMMEDIATE CUTS, the only kind that a politician that can only think until Nov 2012 can understand.
Link to Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148562/Americans-Including-Republicans-Debt-C...
(B) is a scary answer
We just may find out what "economic crisis ensues" really means. Buy gold now my friends.
Both (A) and (B) would seem to result in a credit downgrade. So might other scenarios, like invoking the 14th amendment. The Fed might be able to put off higher interest rates for a while by further easing, but I suppose sooner or later they have to come up.
Back of the envelope: each 1% in interest rate hike would increase debt service on $14T by $140B/year, or $1.4T over 10 years. A 3% hike is not out of the realm of possibility. What a waste: by failing to get a $4T "grand bargain" we might add another $4T to the debt. And many times that amount will move from productive uses to debt service on other loans.
Such a big shock might get the politicians to cooperate, but once the full faith and credit of the United States loses its luster, it may never return, and interest rates may always be higher than they would have been. One might argue that this is the natural course as the dollar's role as reserve currency fades. But fading over time seems much better than having it happen all at once on August 2nd.
Am I right in thinking that prospects for a grand bargain are pretty low, so the probability of downgrade is pretty high?
Taces is coll
It´s very interesting to read that the American people want higher taxes. I´m a Swedish lawyer earning a lot of money, but can only spent half of it because the state want the other half as taxes. But, I´m happy with this, because I know unemployed, the sick and the older after all will have a decent life. For the rich and right-wing American, I just want to say that it´s “cool” to pay tax!