AP-GfK Poll: 62 percent say they favor cutting government services over 29% raising taxes

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 5:20 PM GMT
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_POLL_TAXES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- For all the complaining this time of year, most Americans actually think the taxes they pay are fair.

    Not that they're cheering. Fewer people expect refunds this year than in previous years, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows. But as Monday's filing deadline approaches, the poll shows that 54 percent believe their tax bills are either somewhat fair or very fair, compared with 46 percent who say they are unfair.

    Should taxes be raised to eat into huge federal deficits? Among the public, 62 percent say they favor cutting government services to sop up the red ink. Just 29 percent say raise taxes.

    That's sure to be a major issue as Congress takes up budget legislation for next year and the 2012 presidential campaign gets under way in earnest. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama revived his proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to help reduce government borrowing.

    In the poll, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to think their tax bills were fair. Liberals and moderates were more likely to think so than conservatives. Women more likely than men. Most whites thought their tax bills were fair; most non-whites didn't.

    The young and the old - adults under 30 and seniors 65 and above - were much more likely to say their taxes were fair than those in their prime earning years. Surprisingly, there was little difference in the perception of fairness across income levels.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 5:24 PM GMT
    Oh riddler, you're better than this.

    Of course, you leave out the most relevant part of the article:

    Same articleBut just because people say they pay a fair amount doesn't mean that they think others do.

    Sandra Jennings, a retired teacher in South Bend, Ind., said her federal taxes are fair, but she thinks rich people get off too easily.

    Rich people, she said in an interview, "get all these loopholes. The middle class does not have loopholes."

    Mari Lemelson of Edison, N.J., said, "I have a big problem with the millionaires, at least what I understand to be the millionaires' tax breaks."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 5:26 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidOh riddler, you're better than this.

    Of course, you leave out the most relevant part of the article:

    Same articleBut just because people say they pay a fair amount doesn't mean that they think others do.

    Sandra Jennings, a retired teacher in South Bend, Ind., said her federal taxes are fair, but she thinks rich people get off too easily.

    Rich people, she said in an interview, "get all these loopholes. The middle class does not have loopholes."

    Mari Lemelson of Edison, N.J., said, "I have a big problem with the millionaires, at least what I understand to be the millionaires' tax breaks."


    I'm for simplifying the tax code and that means eliminating most tax breaks - and my position on that has been consistent.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Apr 14, 2011 5:28 PM GMT
    c'mon riddler..."selective quoting" is something southbeach jane would try to pull on us.

    it's THAT bad.

    YOU are better than that!

    did you really think that someone here would not read the entire article and call you out on this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 5:35 PM GMT
    rnch saidc'mon riddler..."selective quoting" is something southbeach jane would try to pull on us.

    it's THAT bad.

    YOU are better than that!

    did you really think that someone here would not read the entire article and call you out on this?


    Ummm - if you've noticed, I generally just pull the first few paragraphs versus the whole article. Not sure how the additional quotes change anything - as, once again, I would agree that simplifying the tax code, and therefore eliminating loopholes would be ideal. Further, the anecdotal quotes are unsubstantiated - or at least do not reference the polling data.

    The bottomline is still however, that people in the US seem to believe that cutting government services in line with taxes is better than the tax increases to meet the increased costs of government services.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 5:37 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidc'mon riddler..."selective quoting" is something southbeach jane would try to pull on us.

    it's THAT bad.

    YOU are better than that!

    did you really think that someone here would not read the entire article and call you out on this?


    Ummm - if you've noticed, I generally just pull the first few paragraphs versus the whole article. Not sure how the additional quotes change anything - as, once again, I would agree that simplifying the tax code, and therefore eliminating loopholes would be ideal. Further, the anecdotal quotes are unsubstantiated - or at least do not reference the polling data.

    The bottomline is still however, that people in the US seem to believe that cutting government services in line with taxes is better than the tax increases to meet the increased costs of government services.


    It was leaving out the quotes demonstrating that while most feel their pay their fair share, the 60% of the public wants the Bush tax cuts for $250K and over ended, and 90% support a millionaires surtax.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Apr 14, 2011 5:40 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidc'mon riddler..."selective quoting" is something southbeach jane would try to pull on us.

    it's THAT bad.

    YOU are better than that!

    did you really think that someone here would not read the entire article and call you out on this?


    Ummm - if you've noticed, I generally just pull the first few paragraphs versus the whole article. Not sure how the additional quotes change anything - as, once again, I would agree that simplifying the tax code, and therefore eliminating loopholes would be ideal. Further, the anecdotal quotes are unsubstantiated - or at least do not reference the polling data.

    The bottomline is still however, that people in the US seem to believe that cutting government services in line with taxes is better than the tax increases to meet the increased costs of government services.


    It was leaving out the quotes demonstrating that while most feel their pay their fair share, the 60% of the public wants the Bush tax cuts for $250K and over ended, and 90% support a millionaires surtax.



    you noticed that also, hey icon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 5:45 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidIt was leaving out the quotes demonstrating that while most feel their pay their fair share, the 60% of the public wants the Bush tax cuts for $250K and over ended, and 90% support a millionaires surtax.


    That would have been significant. While that might not surprise me - after all, who wouldn't want someone else to pay for all their benefits? Where in the article did it say that "60% of the public wants the Bush tax cuts for $250K and over ended, and 90% support a millionaires surtax"?

    That said I think those same people would be surprised at how much in taxes high income earners (not always the rich) do pay - again, more than double their economic weight in terms of the overall government revenue pie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:00 PM GMT
    Riddler - It wasn't in the article. It was in a WSJ poll but I don't have the link handy.

    SB - The reality is that the income taxes on the rich (top 1-5%) are at near historic lows while their share of the income/wealth of the economy has risen exponentially in the last 10 years. Of course, they are paying most of the tax revenue. They have all the money!

    041411-snapshot.jpg


    snapshot-032411.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:07 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    SB - The reality is that the income taxes on the rich (top 1-5%) are at near historic lows while their share of the income/wealth of the economy has risen exponentially in the last 10 years. Of course, they are paying most of the tax revenue. They have all the money!


    It is not the function of the Federal government to take money from the rich and give it to the poor.


    No. But it is the function of the government to levy taxes to support the general welfare. And if the money is in the hands of the few, then they need to be taxed at a higher rate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:27 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Christian73 said[/cite]Oh riddler, you're better than this.

    Of course, you leave out the most relevant part of the article:


    Christian73.....didn't you know:


    Riddler's post "Was Not intended to be Factually Correct"
    icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:30 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    No. But it is the function of the government to levy taxes to support the general welfare.


    No, it is not.



    Christian73 said
    And if the money is in the hands of the few, then they need to be taxed at a higher rate.


    No they don't.



    Incorrect. In fact, it's the sole purpose of government to ensure the welfare of its citizens. That's why we form them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:36 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Incorrect. In fact, it's the sole purpose of government to ensure the welfare of its citizens. That's why we form them.


    Incorrect.



    Sad. icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:43 PM GMT
    Riddler's Posts make it appear to me, that their basis is from a silver spoon fed rich kid that hasn't experienced the real world or any struggles for sustenance. How about letting us in on where you fall in the Income levels Riddler, your mindset has us wondering.

    Were you raised in a family with yearly incomes

    (1) under $100,000

    (2) between $100,000 and $200,000

    (3) $200,000 to $500,000

    (4) $500,000 to $1,000,000

    (5) Or multi millionaire

    Answering will explain a lot, or else show us that your kinda dumb and would vote against your own interests like a lot of ignorant poor Amerians, who vote that way because of perceived social/religious concerns.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:50 PM GMT
    realifedad said Riddler's Posts make it appear to me, that their basis is from a silver spoon fed rich kid that hasn't experienced the real world or any struggles for sustenance. How about letting us in on where you fall in the Income levels Riddler, your mindset has us wondering.

    Were you raised in a family with yearly incomes

    (1) under $100,000

    (2) between $100,000 and $200,000

    (3) $200,000 to $500,000

    (4) $500,000 to $1,000,000

    (5) Or multi millionaire

    Answering will explain a lot, or else show us that your kinda dumb and would vote against your own interests like a lot of ignorant poor Amercians, who vote that way because of perceived social/religious concerns.




    Answering will explain a lot, or else show us that your kinda dumb and would vote against your own interests like a lot of ignorant poor Americans, who vote that way because of perceived social/religious concerns.

    Lather
    Rinse
    Repeat!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 7:06 PM GMT
    realifedad said Riddler's Posts make it appear to me, that their basis is from a silver spoon fed rich kid that hasn't experienced the real world or any struggles for sustenance. How about letting us in on where you fall in the Income levels Riddler, your mindset has us wondering.

    Were you raised in a family with yearly incomes

    (1) under $100,000

    (2) between $100,000 and $200,000

    (3) $200,000 to $500,000

    (4) $500,000 to $1,000,000

    (5) Or multi millionaire

    Answering will explain a lot, or else show us that your kinda dumb and would vote against your own interests like a lot of ignorant poor Amerians, who vote that way because of perceived social/religious concerns.


    I was raised in a family that had annual incomes under 100k. My profile more or less provides my job history from there. I will say though that almost immediately after university, both my sister and I each made more than my parents combined - she did computer engineering in Boston, I did finance in NYC.

    That said, I'm not really sure what relevance this has. It's ironic though - there is no answer that I could possibly give that would satisfy you. Either I was born into a wealthy family, and therefore vote in my best interests or am from a poor family therefore vote against my best interest because of "perceived social/religious concerns." The other possibility is that your entire world view is wrong. That because the facts don't fit your world view you feel you need to attack me personally.

    You go on your rants of lunacy on the middle east (which I don't bother to read or participate in because there just aren't enough hours in the day to learn about in detail) as if writing with CAPS LOCKS makes your arguments appear more rational, you make absurd suppositions, and the best you can come up with as to why the poor could possibly disagree with you is that they "vote against your own interests like a lot of ignorant poor Amerians, who vote that way because of perceived social/religious concerns"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 7:13 PM GMT



    I was raised in a family that had annual incomes under 100k. My profile more or less provides my job history from there. I will say though that almost immediately after university, both my sister and I each made more than my parents combined - she did computer engineering in Boston, I did finance in NYC.


    Above Statement from riddler78.... Was Not Intended to Be Factually Correct

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 7:21 PM GMT
    LeanathleticDC said


    I was raised in a family that had annual incomes under 100k. My profile more or less provides my job history from there. I will say though that almost immediately after university, both my sister and I each made more than my parents combined - she did computer engineering in Boston, I did finance in NYC.


    Above Statement from riddler78.... Was Not Intended to Be Factually Correct



    In your next moment of lucidity, perhaps you might elaborate where and when I said that was not intended to be factually correct? Or are you opining on facts of my life over your baseless suppositions as per usual?
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Apr 14, 2011 7:31 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Incorrect. In fact, it's the sole purpose of government to ensure the welfare of its citizens. That's why we form them.


    Incorrect.



    Sad. icon_cry.gif


    Not really. You could move to France or Norway! icon_biggrin.gif


    Lame! icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 7:46 PM GMT

    "I was raised in a family that had annual incomes under 100k."

    You're 32 or 33? That means in 1980, when the median wage was about 47K a year your parents were pretty well off. As reference, an assistant accountant at the credit union where I worked was able to raise a family on 650 every 2 weeks as salary before taxes. And that's in expensive BC.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 7:46 PM GMT
    LeanathleticDC said


    I was raised in a family that had annual incomes under 100k. My profile more or less provides my job history from there. I will say though that almost immediately after university, both my sister and I each made more than my parents combined - she did computer engineering in Boston, I did finance in NYC.


    Above Statement from riddler78.... Was Not Intended to Be Factually Correct





    LOL!

    And this thread is TOTAL BULLSHIT.
    NO ONE is proposing raising taxes INSTEAD of cutting spending to reduce the National Debt.
    BOTH parties support cutting spending.
    And President Obama and the Democrats ONLY support raising taxes on the WEALTHIEST 1-2% OF AMERICANS - not on the other 98-99% of Americans.
    And - as this article indicates - when it comes to raising taxes ONLY on the wealthy - Americans feel very differently about THAT, than they do about having their own taxes raised.
    Many polls show that as well.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/03/us-usa-taxes-poll-idUSTRE7022AK20110103
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 8:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    LeanathleticDC said


    I was raised in a family that had annual incomes under 100k. My profile more or less provides my job history from there. I will say though that almost immediately after university, both my sister and I each made more than my parents combined - she did computer engineering in Boston, I did finance in NYC.


    Above Statement from riddler78.... Was Not Intended to Be Factually Correct



    In your next moment of lucidity, perhaps you might elaborate where and when I said that was not intended to be factually correct? Or are you opining on facts of my life over your baseless suppositions as per usual?



    And the statement above too from riddler78's "Was Not Intended to Be Factually Correct"

    *

    ( To my fellow Lefties, you see why there are no Rightie equivalents to John Stewart, Stephen Colbert or Bill Maher....and why that Fox Right Wing Comedy Show in 2007 was so so bad that it was canceled within months.)

    Righties really do lack that compassion and humor gene.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 8:21 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    "I was raised in a family that had annual incomes under 100k."

    You're 32 or 33? That means in 1980, when the median wage was about 47K a year your parents were pretty well off. As reference, an assistant accountant at the credit union where I worked was able to raise a family on 650 every 2 weeks as salary before taxes. And that's in expensive BC.



    I only responded within the various options provided (under $100K being the lowest income bracket) but I would consider my parents to have been middle income at the time. They were however frugal first generation immigrants which I think also can make a difference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 8:43 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    "I was raised in a family that had annual incomes under 100k."

    You're 32 or 33? That means in 1980, when the median wage was about 47K a year your parents were pretty well off. As reference, an assistant accountant at the credit union where I worked was able to raise a family on 650 every 2 weeks as salary before taxes. And that's in expensive BC.



    I only responded within the various options provided (under $100K being the lowest income bracket) but I would consider my parents to have been middle income at the time. They were however frugal first generation immigrants which I think also can make a difference.



    You grew up in a well-off household.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 8:44 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    "I was raised in a family that had annual incomes under 100k."

    You're 32 or 33? That means in 1980, when the median wage was about 47K a year your parents were pretty well off. As reference, an assistant accountant at the credit union where I worked was able to raise a family on 650 every 2 weeks as salary before taxes. And that's in expensive BC.



    I only responded within the various options provided (under $100K being the lowest income bracket) but I would consider my parents to have been middle income at the time. They were however frugal first generation immigrants which I think also can make a difference.



    You grew up in a well-off household.



    Um - how do you figure? I haven't given you sufficient data to make that statement. You do realize that under $100K means well... under $100k? ie 0-100k?