Posted on 12/24/2008 7:07:56 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Tax Millionaires, Not Sodas, Poll Concludes By Sewell Chan
New York State voters oppose the so-called “obesity tax” on nondiet soft drinks by a resounding margin of 60 percent to 37 percent, but support, by an even more overwhelming margin of 84 percent to 13 percent, raising the state income tax on people who make more than $1 million per year, according to results of a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.
Even those who prefer diet sodas — which would be exempt from the proposed 18 percent sales tax — said they opposed the measure (58 percent to 39 percent), while drinkers of regular sodas opposed the idea by an even stronger margin (64 percent to 31 percent). Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents surveyed all opposed the proposed tax, though by varying margins.
(In an amusing aside, the Quinnipiac poll noted, “Independent voters are the most weight conscious on the political spectrum as 37 percent prefer diet soft drinks, compared to 27 percent of Republicans and 30 percent of Democrats.”)
Meanwhile, support for the so-called “millionaires’ tax” extended even to Republicans, who favored the measure, by a margin of 72 percent to 27 percent. Gov. David A. Paterson has expressed opposition to raising taxes on wealthy voters, but has suggested that there might be no other option if the state budget crisis continues to fester.
(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I are a publik skool grajewit. Wee shud raze taxs on millionairs, 'cause thare rich n won't bee able too moove too anuthr stait...
Its fitting that this story came out on Christmas Eve—it shows that way too many adults still believe that Santa (aka “the rich”) will give them all the toys on their wish list without them having to work for it.
Years of Liberalism have conditioned the average American to believe he or she can get something for nothing—that the mythical “rich” will take care of them just like their mommies and daddies used to take care of them. We are a culture of infants.
Uh-huh.
Reminds of a recent piece on NPR. They went the Oklahoma -- the reddest of the red states -- and interviewed McCain supporters. Amazingly -- who could have seen this coming? -- every single one of the McCain supporters they found in Oklahoma had changed their mind about Obama since the election. They all loved him. Filled with hope. A new era in America. Actually kind of glad that McCain lost. Very impressed by everything Obama had done since the election.
A leftwing media just pushes these lies endlessly.
I wonder if the thought that the millionaires might just move out of New York state has crossed his tiny little Democrat mind...
The amusing thing is that the only logic they can come up with....is to tax enough to generate the lost revenue. None of their logic includes making significant cuts in common structure of the state. The simplest method here....is to issue out a directive that every state group loses fifteen percent of their bucket of money...and just let each group determine who gets fired and what gets dropped. None of this has to be made at the state legislative level...other than figuring the amount to cut. The entire state budget is bloated...throughout each single department.
Yeah, that 767 to Hawaii thing and the Blago thing -
BRILLIANT! BRILLIANT!
The NYT doesn’t care about “regular” folks, despite this headline. Only journalists (with their second-to-evereyone rigorous academic training followed by extensive internship at the “Dan Rather School of the Painfully Below Average”) should be allowed to express an opinion.
How ‘bout cutting government spending instead of taxing the people who make things work or flavored, carbonated sugar water?
Was there a “tax neither” choice? How about not raising taxes on neither.
I may not be a millionaire....but I would like to be one, someday :) No need to tax success
New Yorkers should have learned that, usually, increasing prices causes less of the activity. In about 1991, New York City increased the fares of its subways. Fewer people decided to ride the subway, and the revenue decreased. The fare was decreased, and more people rode the subway, causing a revenue increase.
You know, people that are wealthy are that way for a reason. They know how to keep their dollars OUT of the hands of Government by the few legal means still available to us.
Just keep piling on the taxes, Dems!
I’m going ‘John Galt’ for the next four years; may others here are as well.
Good luck getting an extra DIME out of my household, LOL! I LOVE a challenge. :)
If we are going to soak the “evil rich”, let’s get the right ones! Tax WEALTH, not INCOME. Let’s clean out those trust funds and retirement accounts. Force Ted Turner to sell off some of his land to pay the tax bill. Put those Kennedy, Streisand, and Winfrey fortunes to work for “the poor”.
After all, those are the people that tell the hard-working small business owner that THEY wouldn’t mind paying more taxes.
Of course, that’s easy to say when your fortune is already made and well sheltered from the taxes you think aren’t high enough.
Maybe they can take a cue from California. Drive enough millionaires out, and who’s left to pay the bill? Who COULD pay those bills? Day laborers?
Tax her, him, and them! Tax she and he. Tax the man behind the tree. But whatever you do, do not tax me!
I say tax welfare recipients at a rate of 10%. There are way more of them than millionaires, and the taxes can be taken out before they get their check, kind of like the rest of us wage slaves. Then they too will have a reason to vote against tax increases.
I’m going “John Galt” too. Or, to upgrade it to a more modern term, I choose to say that I’ll be “lowering my economic footprint”. I’ve convinced several friends to read Atlas Shrugged since the election and they plan to do the same.
I hope enough people do it to make a difference. I’d love to see some MSM panic pieces about “consumers on strike”, etc. Then, I want to see the Messiah or Hairplugs telling a glassy-eyed Katie Couric that it’s our patriotic duty to work hard, pay more taxes, and spend what’s left.
That's an interesting idea. A straight tax wouldn't do it, because, just like the average salaried worker, you get used to the after tax amount. BUT, people notice changes. If you changed the amount they received downward (so far its only been up), and explicitly listed the change as matching a tax increase, you'd get the desired result.
Of course, the impact would be diminished by the screams of the welfare industry over this policy of having welfare recipients share in the changes of fortune that affect the taxpayers who support them.
why not just give them less in the first place?
Upstate needs its own state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.