53% Republican Astroturf vs Republican Grass Roots
Who are the 53% ?
Erick Erickson claims that they are the 53% who pay positive income taxes which, he suggests, are the same people who disagree completely with the occupiers of Wall Street
The Bloomberg poll says they are the fraction of self identified Republicans who support raising taxes on family income over $250000 to reduce the deficit
“While none of the Republican presidential candidates has backed a tax increase on households with more than $250,000 in annual income, 53 percent of self-identified Republicans said they would support such a measure to bring down the deficit.”
But, of course, the Bloomberg poll is commissioned by Bloomberg an anti-capitalist fan of Occupy Wall Street.
Obama is playing to the base — the Republican base.
that is all well and good. but i will have more respect for them when they say “raise MY taxes too.”
Obviously “the rich” can afford to have their taxes raised more than the poor. or even the poor poor middle between 50k and 249k. But as long as we have a country in which the attitude is “tax someone else,” we will have neither good government nor good mental hygiene.
Conservatives think it would be great for the Koch brothers to pay 0% capital gains taxes but get grumpy because the the ‘lucky duckies’ making 30k/yr ‘only’ pay 15% in payroll taxes.
it is my duty to point out that the payroll “taxes” are a kind of forced savings and insurance payment which the workers get back when they need it most.
this is very very different from asking “the rich” to pay for your breakfast.
it may be that the labor market in this country is so out of balance that the workers need some help from government, but over the long run an arrangement by which “the rich” screw the workers at the workplace and then are forced to make atonement by paying taxes to support the impoverished workers is not a healthy way to run an economy.
So, quote Ericskon, quote a Bloomberg poll, snark about the Bloomberg poll and then conclude something regarding Obama’s behavior from the quotes from Erickson and Bloomberg. I’m not sure how that works.
Taxes are what pay for a civil society, payroll saving pay for a civl society identified with minimizing poverty in the aged, widowed and infirm.
If billionairistas don’t want taxes someone else ought to define what a civil society might be.
this is very very different from asking “the rich” to pay for your breakfast.
If the rich are paying a lower tax rate than I am, I’m happy to have them pay for my eggs and toast.
forced to make atonement
Well, I haven’t seen much atonement on Wall Street to date, so more atonement, please. And unlike you, I’m not wedded to some faux moralism regarding the travails of the upper class, so I can be quite flexible on the precise form it takes.
The rich haven’t been all the great at sharing the wealth, so they deserve a share of the inequities they’ve lobbied to create.
“The Bloomberg-Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 Americans by telephone. The margin of error for overall numbers is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The poll covered 391 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents with a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points for that group.”
First of all…..there is no such thing as a Republican leaning Independent. Independents are merely Liberals who are pissed at the Democrat Party, but will vote for them regardless. Always have and they always will. There are exceptions, but that is the rule!
If you relate back to the other recent polls, once again it must be pounted out that a tax increase is only advocated along with spending cuts, and the question was not asked with the $250,000 number. When are you going stop this consistant propoganda play?
“Obama is playing to the base — the Republican base.”
You have to be kidding right? Why is it that everytime you guys try this manipulation, a manipulation of people and voting ilk who you agree with, nobody can ever offer a fact-based explaination to back up this ridiculous but consistant claim? No matter how many times you guys try to make people believe this, people who do not agree with Obama are not going to all of a sudden believe that Obama is an ally of the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement just because you do not want to have to take responsiblity for the complete failure of the Progressive Ideals and Leadership known as The Democrat Party especially Barak Obama.
What is the basis for this claim? Do you have some sort of fact, explaination or analysis to back this up?
“If billionairistas don’t want taxes”
What are you talking about? The small minority at the top pay the majority of the tax bill already. Raise their taxes to get $60 Billion a year at best, and accomplish what exactly? Obviously the solution has nothing to do with raising taxes, otherwise there would be legitimate support. The solution is in cutting spending, fixing trade, deregulation, increaseing the tax base, and growing the economy.
“If the rich are paying a lower tax rate than I am”
First of all they aren’t, and you have to define rich. You can’t claim that because somebody makes their money thru investment, and the majority of the money is taxed based on the Capital Gains tax, which reduces their “Effective” Tax rate, that they are not paying their fair share. What exactly do you think happends when you raise the Capital gains tax?
“The rich haven’t been all the great at sharing the wealth, so they deserve a share of the inequities they’ve lobbied to create.”
Now that’s Rich! A prime example of the mind-numbed Progressive immaturity…….first we are told that we are going to “Spread the Wealth”…..now it’s “Spread the Misery.” Talk about a failure of Ideals and Leadership on the part of the Democratic Party and the American Left espesically Barack Obama.
What exactly do you think happends when you raise the Capital gains tax?
It makes the baby Jesus cry?
increaseing the tax base
So you’d like to tax the assets of the rich and not just income?
if the rich man pays for your eggs and toast he owns your eggs and toast and can tell the cook to burn the toast and serve the egg raw, or skip the egg.
trust me, you’d prefer paying for your own toast.
Urbanites subsidize rural areas quite heavily, but somehow that subsidy gets very little play in conservative media.
Any guesses why that might be?
Urbanites like to eat and have electricity…
Islam willl change
And rural dwellers like movies and computers but they don’t subsidize the urban areas.
Although if you watched Fox you might think that was the case.
“So you’d like to tax the assets of the rich and not just income?”
No that means everybody should pay taxes. We have at least 40% that do not pay anything, and we have wierd loopholes for both individual and coporate income taxes that need to be closed.
The tax system should be blind, even handed, thorough, and simple.
tell the cook to burn the toast
Excellent! I love burned toast!
We have at least 40% that do not pay anything,
And if you’re so inclined, you can join their ranks: reduce your income.
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman became the latest candidate to back a zero tax rate on income from investments
According to published reports or their websites, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former pizza executive Herman Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have said they back getting rid of the capital gains tax
“And if you’re so inclined, you can join their ranks: reduce your income.”
Obviously, you missed the point! The government recieves the majority of it’s revenue from income taxes. When the Bush Tax Cut was enacted, the majority of the loss came from the loss of revenue from the middle and lower class, because they made up somewhere north of 50% of all income tax revenue, and an entire lower bracket was pushed off the table.
If we raised taxes today back to Clinton levels….the majority of the revenue would come from the middle and lower class brackets. In a Bush economy we would only get somehwere around $60-80 Billion a year from the wealthy…..that accomplishes nothing except to force a change in behavior and possibly make the situation worse, and we are nowhere even near a Bush economy….which makes the debate have even less teeth.
If the goal of the Left is to somehow just take the money with the sole purpose of redistribution, not only does it not solve the problem, but would most certainly cause much more damage….That is the Point!
If the left does not like the fact that wages are stagnant and falling behind, or that corporations and banks are holding on to the money, or that the dollar has lost so much value….then maybe they need to rethink exactly what it is their agenda is attempting to accomplish, and what policies they supported affecting these topics. After all, they have controlled the Senate since 2006, Super majorities in both Houses for 2 1/2 years, and the Executive Branch, and here you are in your original comment pointing your finger at everything else except the relevent issues.
The reason why this is so difficult for you, is that you beleive the problem can be solved with revenue…it clearly can not, I challenge you to prove that it can. If you want people to invest, grow the economy, and fix the unemployment problem, which in turn generates the revenue we need then a Capital Gains incentive is a good place to start.
But…..if your more intersted in class warfare, then you have no solution.
Super majorities in both Houses for 2 1/2 years
Al Franken sworn in – Jul 8, 2009
Scott Brown sworn in – Feb 4, 2010
So 7 months is 2 1/2 years?
And 30 years of policies that promoted capital’s interests over labor led to a world awash in capital. Which ended up being pushed down the gullet of the American consumer, leaving him up to his ears in debt.
We have laws against the sale of addictive drugs in this country for a reason, and cheap credit is the crack cocaine of the new century.
Which produces a system where the American worker can look forward to recessions and layoffs every 5 years while suffering through a financial crisis every 20 years. Add in shitty healthcare and no prospects for retirement and you have right-wing nirvana.
But it keeps the financial industry bonus machine humming along, so the little people will just have to suck it up and get back to work.
Darren there are roughly as many GOP-leaning independents as there are Dem-leaning independents, and they are more like Republicans and Democrats than like pure independents (no more than about 10 percent of voters are in the last category, and that number has been decreasing). And we’ve known this for a couple of decades. What’s changed most is that people increasingly prefer to call themselves independent even though they lean heavily in one direction or the other. Here’s an old myth busting tutorial: http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2009/12/17/three_myths_about_political_in/
Capital Gains incentive is a good place to start.
Nonsense. The combination of too much capital and too much leverage is what got us to this point.
Stop living in the 80’s.
If the rich are paying a lower tax rate than I am”
First of all they aren’t, and you have to define rich.
That’s nice, you know how much 8 pays, and you’ve defined rich since you know how much they pay. Mind sharing both with us? Thought not.
Darren you challented eight on a claim of fact. He proved he was right and you are wrong and so you changed the subject. I think tht you have demonstrated that you have nothing useful to contribute to any serious discussion. I will not waste my time reading your comments again.
Why are you convinced that it is not healthy Coberly ? Is there any evidence of unhealthy consequences of that approach. The economy seems to me to have worked rather well in the 40s 50s and 60s when the US government used that approach.
Is your claim based on any evidence of any sort from anywhere or is it an article of faith ?
Note I am not saying that I don’t care about trade unions. I agree they are important and we would need them even if taxes on the rich were high. But show me the damage done by high taxes levied by a state actually able to keep track of income. Sweden worked fine with a highest marginal rate of 103% for a while.
I guess my post was not as thorough and thoughtful as your excellent comment. I didn’t snark about the Bloomberg poll. I noted a fact which is of some importance and ignored by the vast majority of commentators.
The last line about Obama was meant to be a joke (not funny I admit). I don’t really think he is playing to the Republican base. However, many people who are much more prominent than I am insist he is playing to the Democratic base and giving up on independents and moderates, because he proposed something supported by a majority of self described Republicans.
The gap between public opinion and the power elites beliefs about public opinion is huge and important. Of course Erick E is not in the power elite. I am thinking of Mark Penn, Jon Tester and Ben Nelson. If those two senators were willing to glance at polls from time to time they would have a much better chance to be re-elected.
Coberly on burned toast. You argue that if we raise taxes on the rich we will make them more powerful as he who pays the piper etc. You must argue that the rich became less powerful because of the Reagan and Bush Jr tax cuts. There is no evidence for this in the data.
You have to distinguish between paying for things and paying the person who decides. I’d guess that 1M in campaign contributions has a larger effect than 1B in taxes. I mean get over the metaphor and think of the real world. Do you really think that people are politically powerful because they pay taxes ? Have you heard of K Street ?
Darren see above. I have decided not to read your comments. In this comment I have read only the word “Robert” and conclude that you wish to engage in a discussion with me.
I am not willing to do so. My time is of little value and I waste it in many ways, but I will not spend any of it reading anything your write. I have concluded that you made an assertion of fact then changed the subject when you were proven wrong. Don’t bother trying to convince me that this conclusion is incorrect. I won’t read that either.
I am not interested in any sort of discussion with you now or ever. Don’t waste your time trying to engage in discussion with me. It won’t happen.
Jesus….your arrogant! Do you really beleive I expected a response, or even commented to have you respond? I commented to point out to others your ridiculous propoganda.
Everybody is Shocked!
Well Rich people in the USA sure are paying a lower tax rate that I am. It doesn’t matter how you define rich. I don’t think anyone in the USA has an effective tax rate as high as mine. I live in Italy. I actually don’t know what it is, because I pay no attention at all to my theoretical pre-tax income. I just know how much is deposited in my bank account every month (a lot given how much time I spend on blogs and how little I work).
In general, no matter how one defines “the rich” *On average* the US rich pay a higher effective tax rate than the US non rich. Buffet never denied this. He said that he, Warren Buffet, pays a very low effective tax rate. The reason is that most of his income is classified as capital gains so his effetive tax rate –17% from his 1040 — is only slightly above the capital gains tax rate of 15%. I’m pretty sure that the richest family I know pays an effective tax rate slightly above 15% too. But there are super rich people who pay around 35% as almost all of their income is regular income in the top bracket.