WaPo/ABC poll: Six in ten favor raising taxes on $250K+ households for fiscal-cliff solution

Hotair ^ | 11/28/2012 | Ed Morrissey

[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.

[RetiredArmy]

Romney and everyone says it is 47% getting free stuff. I think it is larger actually when I see the mob at Walmart shopping. Thus, I used a larger number. It is probably over 50% now.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”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 bigger longer term risk is that after these taxes (over $250K) go up if there is no obvious deterioration of the economy that voters notice and instead the economy appears to improve.

If that happens then it is all over for Republicans, they might as well let Dems run un-opposed because no-one will ever believe them again.

After he signs it there better be a economic crash or its Hillary/Omalley in 2017.

[Alas Babylon!]

Oh, don’t get me wrong; I agree.

However, my wishes alone aren’t good enough. If people/government listened to me (and you I suppose) then Sarah Palin would be President, Jim DeMint would be Senate Majority Leader and Michele Bachman would be Speaker... ;-)

But look, the voters have spoken... and they’re idiots.

I haven’t given up, I’ve been beaten. The free-stuffers, race-baiters and baby killers have won.

All along I’ve been telling them just how wrong they are. Now they can get to see it themselves. I say let them have what they want so bad.

Yeah, it will hurt the rest of us, too. But elections matter, and our politics lost. It’s not just Romney and Republicans who lost—all conservatives lost. We—our political positions and morality—were rejected by a majority of those who voted. Those who hold a conservative view and didn’t vote can also share the blame.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The bigger longer term risk is that after these taxes (over $250K) go up if there is no obvious deterioration of the economy that voters notice and instead the economy appears to improve.

Well, how many of us really believe based on solid economic grounds that high taxes being bad for the economy IS A SURE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCE, like day inevitable follows night?

If the economic consequences of higher taxes are SURE to follow, how can there be no deterioration of the economy?

But, if there really is NO DETERIORATION of the economy after higher taxes are implemented, then perhaps the democrats are right.... and if they are right, what’s there to worry about? After all, the economy is fine.

Whatever it is, both beliefs can’t be right. One of them has to be wrong.

[showme_the_Glory]

The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living.” —Anonymous

[sickoflibs]

RE :”But, if there really is NO DETERIORATION of the economy after higher taxes are implemented, then perhaps the democrats are right.... and if they are right, what’s there to worry about? After all, the economy is fine.
Whatever it is, both beliefs can’t be right. One of them has to be wrong.”

Nothing is as simple as talk radio makes it out to be. they create a simple world for those who long for one.

Either side could be right or maybe the truth is the middle.

The problem is that the economy is very complex and nothing is done in a vaccuum, and since those rich tax cuts dont collect much money compared to GDP it is not obvious that it will create big problems.
Clinton and Dems raised taxes in 1993 and yet the economy grew stronger anyway till an internet bubble crash late in Clintons second term, Bush cut taxes in his first term and the economy seemed to get better the same time a house bubble very dangerously grew, then in late 2007 to 2008 boom.

So both sides claim that these events proved they were right, and that other factors caused one or the other to happen.

So this time it better be obvious to everyone not just FNC viewers that these taxes looked like they blew things up, even if its really Europe that does it,..

[Artcore]

“4 of those 6 don’t pay an f*&% cent of federal income tax.”
___________________________________________________

Oh don’t worry, they will be soon enough. This monster is going to have to be fed. Taxes are going up on EVERYBODY! These knuckle heads are going to crap themselves when they get their first paycheck in January.

Elections have consequences...even for dumb a$$ liberals dreaming of utopia. Reality is a bit*h.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” The bigger longer term risk is that after these taxes (over $250K) go up if there is no obvious deterioration of the economy that voters notice and instead the economy appears to improve.”

I wouldn’t worry too much about this. The economy will not get well.

[familyop]

How about the scheduled spending cuts in full and cuts in federal funding to local governments?

[SampleMan]

I’d love to see the cites for those poll results. And it looks like you are equating a partial return to pre-2001 tax rates to genocide and rape. Such a move might not be economically wise or useful, but not immoral.

I'm equating one immoral act to another. Murder, rape, and robbery were all crimes the last time I checked. Progressive taxation is immoral. Whether 9 men decide to take away an unequal amount of a 10th man's money by voting to do it or holding him down directly does not matter.

Having a nice fair vote (or poll) doesn't make the outcome a moral act.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

sol: The bigger longer term risk is that after these taxes (over $250K) go up if there is no obvious deterioration of the economy that voters notice and instead the economy appears to improve.

sjb: I wouldn’t worry too much about this. The economy will not get well.

Ah, but Obama and the media know the Dow, etc., will go up after the GOP caves, and then they will say, "see, the economy got better, just like when Clinton raised taxes." AS IF Wall Street is "the economy."

Like the owner of a car running with one bad cylinder, the fools who watch the nightly news will remain deluded... for a while. "See? it's still running!" After all, they reelected O after 4 years of sabotaging the economy.

[Tau Food]

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.

I'm not going to just accept this poll as legitimate. First, I want to hear what Dick Morris says about it.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Ah, but Obama and the media know the Dow, etc., will go up after the GOP caves, and then they will say, “see, the economy got better, just like when Clinton raised taxes.” AS IF Wall Street is “the economy.”

That is exactly what will happen,
This trap reminds me of the one that Obama/Reid snared Republicans with a year ago on FICA.

Bohner knew he lost this fight when the election results came in. He is just playing out the dance of surrender now, he knows that dance well.

If Obama is to appear to win this fight then we need the economy to appear to significantly deteriorate afterward, not look like it fixes it.
Do republicans like losing or are they just clueless? (Rhetorical question)

Some happy news : FNC on Special Report today did a segment on exactly how SS and medicare are adding to the national debt right NOW. It is like they been reading my stuff.

[sickoflibs]

With Germany in WWI and the Axis in WWII their humiliating loss in those wars was set in motion long before their official unconditional surrenders.
I am using them just as classic examples of failure and not making a moral equivalence here.

There are many things I observed across the months and years that made me not surprised that we are where we are today on this tax standoff and coming surrender and humilation.

Obviously the fact that GWB passed his tax cuts using budget reconciliation (he didn't have 60 in the Senate to do it) without equal cutting spending to make it CBO deficit neutral make this day possible by putting an expiration date on them.
But Republicans STILL had about 10 years since then to sell their position on taxes to voters, of which NOW only 4 of 6 agree with Republicans according to that one poll. Here are a few sad critical milestones that led to this pathetic situation:

1) GWB the first two term R party POTUS leaving office after 8 years with the economy tanking, AFTER his victory on tax cuts referenced above. (this was significant)

2) House Republicans trapping themselves on FICA tax cuts a year ago and letting themselves be seen as saying we have to pay for middle class tax cuts but not for the tax cuts for ‘the rich’, those are a freebee. ( That was a humiliating disaster for them and darn painful to watch.)

3) Republicans in R House including delayed 'across the board spending cuts' (until after the election) of their own sacred Golden Calf Defense Pork in that Budget Control Act last year, delayed until the tax cuts expire, to use as a negotiating chip.
Yep give the bank robber MORE ammunition for that gun to rob your bank with.

4) Nominating Mitt Romney who is a rich arrogant billionaire who only pays that 15% capital gains tax rate to run a campaign against O on: “We have to cut taxes for rich job creators like me for your sake” (This very painful episode was so predictable and we were forced to watch it. Others drank the ‘we are winning Koolaid in denial of this day coming)

Back exactly 4 years ago 2008 after that defeat I posted a number of ideas here on how to avoid this painful day. After the official surrender ceremony I will re-post them here.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Obviously the fact that GWB passed his tax cuts using budget reconciliation (he didn’t have 60 in the Senate to do it) without equal cutting spending to make it CBO deficit neutral make this day possible by putting an expiration date on them.
But Republicans STILL had about 10 years since then to sell their position on taxes to voters,”

And they did NOTHING!

” Republicans in R House including delayed ‘across the board spending cuts’ (until after the election) of their own sacred Golden Calf Defense Pork in that Budget Control Act last year, delayed until the tax cuts expire, to use as a negotiating chip.
Yep give the bank robber MORE ammunition for that gun to rob your bank with. “

EXACTLY.

“) Nominating Mitt Romney who is a rich arrogant billionaire who only pays that 15% capital gains tax rate to run a campaign against O on: “We have to cut taxes for rich job creators like me for your sake” (This very painful episode was so predictable and we were forced to watch it. Others drank the ‘we are winning Koolaid in denial of this day coming)”

Romney had nothing going for him. Then he went on to make HUGE mistakes.

1) Telling voters that half of them are moochers. True or not, it was suicidal.

2) Buying a 20 million dollar house in LaJolla, California
recently. Obama hung both around his neck.

3) He couldn’t attack the POS Obamacare, because of Romneycare.

4) He didn’t fight at all. No Mr. Romney, Obama was NOT “a nice fella who just didn’t get the job done”. He is a thug who looted our country, and deliberately destroyed entire industries. NO balls, Mr. Romney! When you have NO balls, people see you for what you are.