Posted on 11/28/2012 10:25:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Well, that $80 billion a year will come in handy, no? That's the impression that six in ten Americans have as a solution to the trillion-dollar deficits in the latest Washington Post/ABC poll — and 39% of Republicans, too. The result demonstrates the political leverage of Democrats in the fiscal-cliff fight, and perhaps the leeway for the House GOP to compromise as well:
Sixty percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll support raising taxes on incomes more than $250,000 a year, long a popular option overall, but also a divisive one: While 73 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents are in favor, far fewer Republicans, 39 percent, agree.
Interestingly, the move to limit deductions doesn't get nearly as much support:
Americans divide on another item on the table, reducing income-tax deductions. In a question testing the concept generally – that is, without suggesting that wealthier Americans would be harder hit – 49 percent oppose limiting deductions, while 44 percent are in favor. On this option, strong opposition exceeds strong support, although intensity isn’t high on either side, 28 vs. 20 percent.
Partisan divisions on this question are less pronounced than they are on a tax hike for the better-off: Support ranges from 45 percent of Democrats and independents to 39 percent of Republicans; opposition, 48 to 51 percent across these groups. “Strong” opposition, likewise, is similar across partisan groups, 26 to 30 percent.
Does that make any sense at all? Part of the problem with the tax rates, from the populist point of view, is that the wealthy are perceived to have too many ways around them. That’s why Mitt Romney belatedly took up the cause of limiting deductions to a capped amount. That way one can limit the ability to shield income without having unpleasant conversations about the distortions provided by certain types of deductions.
Peter Orszag writes today at Bloomberg that these unpleasant conversations are the reason we won’t see deduction reform, even with a cap:
Let’s take a closer look at the effects of such a limit, though. In 2009, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service, taxpayers who itemized their deductions and had incomes of more than $200,000 had average deductions of $50,000 or more. For those with $200,000 to $500,000 in income, average deductions amounted to more than $51,000; from $500,000 to $1 million in income, the average was more than $100,000. At higher incomes, the averages rose further.
That households with incomes of more than $200,000 would be disproportionately affected by the deduction limit is neither surprising nor necessarily troublesome. Here comes the problem. In 2009, those taxpayers deducted more than $300 billion, 90 percent of which came from just three categories: taxes paid (mostly state and local taxes), home-mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
Of the big three, charitable giving is the most discretionary (unless a family moves to a smaller house with a smaller mortgage, or a city or state with lower taxes). The charitable sector thus has the most to lose from a limitation on itemized deductions.
How much money is involved? In 2009, households with incomes of more than $200,000 claimed almost $60 billion in charitable deductions — or about 20 percent of total charitable giving in the U.S. that year. Households with incomes of more than $10 million claimed an average of $1.75 million each in charitable donations in 2009, and they accounted for roughly 5 percent of all giving.
Charitable giving reacts to tax incentives, and in response to any limits on deductions it could even fall by about the same amount as the increase in the tax bill, according to John List of theUniversity of Chicago, who recently reviewed the literature on this subject. Other studies have suggested an effect about half as large. Even that smaller estimate, though, suggests that limiting deductions to $50,000 a year could easily reduce giving by tens of billions of dollars.
How long do you think it will take the charitable sector to figure this out?
Well, how about some simple entitlement reform — like raising the retirement eligibility age? That’s the most unpopular option of all, opposed by two-thirds of Democrats and Republicans:
Sixty-seven percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, oppose another suggestion, raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. And on this idea, strong opposition surpasses strong support by more than 3-1, 49 to 14 percent.
Opposition to increasing the Medicare eligibility age crosses partisan and ideological lines; it’s 68 percent or more among Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives alike. Instead views relate to age; opposition peaks at 78 percent among adults age 50-64. It’s also higher among women and people with less than $100,000 incomes, compared with men and the better-off.
Terrific. The only broad consensus for action is the populist tax-hike option which will solve less than 10% of the problem, and two-thirds won’t even take a basic step like mildly indexing retirement eligibility to life expectancy in order to reduce costs in the biggest fiscal train wreck of the federal budget.
If we could trade marginal tax-rate increases for real cuts in spending and actual entitlement reform that would end the long-term problems in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, I’d take that trade, if somewhat reluctantly. This poll shows that Americans still have not come to grips with the scope and size of the problem … or even basic math.
With a Deficit and Debt as large as ours, you can confiscate not only 100% of the earnings of “The Rich”, but all of their accumulated assets, and you still don’t permanently cover the deficit or retire the debt.
There aren’t enough rich people.
Socialism has to come after the Middle Class. That’s where the money is.
6 out of 10 believe stealing is OK (as long as it’s not from them). The republic is dead - long live mob rule (AKA democracy)...
That’s what I’v been sayin’. Hit the gas pedal. Go off the cliff. Let it burn to the ground. That’s the only way you’ll ever get the lollipops away from the babies!
You are right. That is the completely absurd part of this debate. Sure, let’s hike taxes on the rich. And it will barely make a dent in the deficit. And, as was the case in England, all the sudden the ranks of people earning over $1 million will drop through the floor as they either defer compensation or leave the country. Then what? What is the game plan then? There is none because the Dems don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class to cover their out of control spending.
The answer is very simple. Either cut spending back to about 18% of GDP to match taxes or we get a huge Middle Class tax hike to cover the spending. That is the choice but the Dems don’t want to say it and the media covers for them.
And the American population is so drunk on the Welfare State that they think they can keep getting benefits with the “rich” paying for them. Its why the rotten system is on its last legs.
Only answer - go off the cliff, everybody pays - and don't increase the federal debt ceiling. When checks stop coming, maybe the takers will realize WE'RE OUT OF MONEY!Won't make any difference.
They'll still blame Bush/Republicans/conservatives. You can't overcome generations of brainwashing*.
*public schools and the NEA
6 in 10??
That's not Romney's 47%, thats 60%.
Romney was off by 13%
Clueless Republicans, this was Romneys main argument too. Maybe he used Gallop and Rasmussen research to tell him that it was a big winner.
I think Kissinger said something similar about American voters years ago. But replace “Chilean” with “American” and it sure fits:
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”
When I first read this (or similar) quote years ago I thought “What a pompous ass”. Now I realize Kissinger was right.
Did those 6 in 10 consider cutting government waste?
” RE :”WaPo/ABC poll: Six in ten favor raising taxes on $250K+ households for fiscal-cliff solution”
6 in 10??
That’s not Romney’s 47%, thats 60%.
Romney was off by 13%”
This shows how dumbed-down the American people have become.
Taxes from this will pay for 1 or 2 days of government. Jobs will be lost. Hiring will be curtailed. So the tax will have a net negative benefit on the economy.
The 49.5% have spoken.
There, fixed it.
RE: The 49.5% have spoken.
Where are you getting that number from?
I’m weary of caring, actually.
I say, give them everything they want.
Raise taxes on the rich; go ahead.
Continue to spend money no one has. Free stuff for everyone.
Let it all fall completely apart. You just can’t cure stupidity. Only death can. Let the dumb die.
Isn’t that the percentage that voted for Obama over Romney and the Libertarians, Greens, and associated third partiers?
Then 6 out of 10 are too f’n clueless to waste our oxygen.
Raising those taxes won’t do DIDDLY to avoid the fiscal cliff.
The deduction that must be reduced is the standard deduction.
Those not paying taxes should pay something/more.Reducing the standard deduction as opposed to only fiddling with deductions of those who itemize is what is really fair.
Those who think it is only fair for the well to do to pay taxes must be eliminated. They are enemies of the Republic
Just giving up isn’t going to get that deadbeat brother in law out of your basement. It’s better for the states with half a brain to get out while the getting’s good and leave the rest to self implode.
That's really nice of the 6 in 10 Axholerods to be so generous with someone else's money. Good commies. Good little commies. They're learning.
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.