Rasmussen: Americans favor tax that is flat and progressive

[New Deal Democrat]

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Most Americans continue to think the middle class pays more than its share in taxes and favor a system where everyone pays the same percentage of their income.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ercentage_rate

---------

Friday, February 17, 2012

Voters appear to be showing a little less resistance to tax increases, and for the first time ever a majority would support a candidate who promised to raise taxes only on the wealthy over one who was against all tax increases.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...xes_on_wealthy

---------

I guess a lot depends on how the polling questions are asked.

[JRDelirious]

Well, in the end their answer could be built upon the same premise: "The rich are paying a lower effective proportion of their total income as taxes than I am. I want us all to pay taxes at the same effective proportion of our total income. If that means their tax burden must go up, then let it go up."

[BobLibDem]

That's a very poisoned well. Rasmussen chooses its questions to get the responses it wants.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

That's a very poisoned well. Rasmussen chooses its questions to get the responses it wants.

The New York Times November 4, 2010

On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...rmed-strongly/

Most polls demonstrate that a fairly large majority is in favor of raising taxes on the rich.

[Martin Hyde]

Polling obviously can be skewed by the bias of the pollster and the questions they ask, but I have throughout my life observed a lot of support for a flat tax from both sides of the political spectrum. Not amongst the people who actually understand the tax system or politics, most people like that should oppose a flat tax (it's not fiscally sound at levels that are politically acceptable.) However, lots of "Joe on the street" people I know that vote Democrat think a flat tax is a good idea.

It's a simple solution and most American whether they vote Democrat or Republican just don't know very much about the actual issues, so they hear "flat tax rate for everyone" and that sounds simple and fair, so they're all for it.

It's another example of how the American people simply are not sophisticated enough to make intelligent decisions on most issues.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Polling obviously can be skewed by the bias of the pollster and the questions they ask, but I have throughout my life observed a lot of support for a flat tax from both sides of the political spectrum. Not amongst the people who actually understand the tax system or politics, most people like that should oppose a flat tax (it's not fiscally sound at levels that are politically acceptable.) However, lots of "Joe on the street" people I know that vote Democrat think a flat tax is a good idea.

It's a simple solution and most American whether they vote Democrat or Republican just don't know very much about the actual issues, so they hear "flat tax rate for everyone" and that sounds simple and fair, so they're all for it.

It's another example of how the American people simply are not sophisticated enough to make intelligent decisions on most issues.

I think this is one reason so many conservatives are worried about a Romney nomination. His presidential campaign could be the cause of the general public becoming aware that wealthy people actually pay a lower effective tax rate than most middle-class voters are paying.

[Spiritus Mundi]

One the of the problems with how these questions get phrased in most polls is that questions tend to be posed as binary alternatives (easier to score) and with no or minimal context. I believe most Americans favor a simplified tax code. I also believe most Americancs favor a progressive tax code.

Of course, income tax is only one part of teh tax burden. And government fees tend ot get overlooked in these discussions as well.

[Buck Godot]

I truly think that the majority of Americans in favor of a flat tax don't know what it means. The word flat sounds like something that is low, and they told that it is simpler, and so they get the idea that it means that they will have to pay less taxes and won't have to fill out the current 1040 form which they find confusing. In fact their taxes will go up and the only change to the form will be that rather than looking up the final number on the table they will have to do a multiplication.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

It's a simple solution and most American whether they vote Democrat or Republican just don't know very much about the actual issues, so they hear "flat tax rate for everyone" and that sounds simple and fair, so they're all for it.

This. I had two high school civics instructors who didn't understand how marginal tax brackets worked. "So if you make $42,000 a year, a $2,000 raise could leave you with less income!"

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

This. I had two high school civics instructors who didn't understand how marginal tax brackets worked. "So if you make $42,000 a year, a $2,000 raise could leave you with less income!"

Don'r remind me - when the Reagan/Bush tax cuts took effect, I had to explain this to half of the people I was working with at the time.

Another problem with "flat tax": how many people think it means, "Everybody pays the same percentage of their income, with no exceptions - if you're making $30,000 a year and your family barely scrapes by, imagine having to do it (assuming a 9% flat tax) on $27,300"?

I wonder how many people think, "I shouldn't have to pay any income tax until everybody who makes more than I do is taxed to the point where their after-tax income matches mine"?

[Chronos]

It's a simple solution and most American whether they vote Democrat or Republican just don't know very much about the actual issues, so they hear "flat tax rate for everyone" and that sounds simple and fair, so they're all for it.

It's not a simple solution. It only sounds simple. But the complicated part, figuring out just what your taxable income is, would still be there.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

I truly think that the majority of Americans in favor of a flat tax don't know what it means. The word flat sounds like something that is low, and they told that it is simpler, and so they get the idea that it means that they will have to pay less taxes and won't have to fill out the current 1040 form which they find confusing. In fact their taxes will go up and the only change to the form will be that rather than looking up the final number on the table they will have to do a multiplication.

Not if the flat tax rate is low enough and exempts people under a certain income line.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Not if the flat tax rate is low enough and exempts people under a certain income line.

You think the rich would be backing a tax that would actually raise their tax rate?
Yeah, right.

If the rate was low enough, we'd clearly be getting less revenue, right? Since you've never printed out 89 pages of tax forms, you don't know that the complexity is in what you can deduct. If you want to get rid of this, you don't need to pass a flat tax to do it. But remember, every deduction has its champions, and few are going to care all that much about eliminating it. Anyway, as mentioned, the very easiest part of filling out a tax return is calculating your tax.

So, please explain how we are going to get the same amount of money if everyone pays less. Or do you think it makes sense for the middle class to pay more and the rich pay less? Mitt does, of course.

[Linden Arden]

A flat tax would need to be about 32% to maintain parity with today's tax receipts.

(assuming same rate of GDP, tax compliance, and no change in unearned income or the EITC).

[Chessic Sense]

Originally Posted by Voyager

You think the rich would be backing a tax that would actually raise their tax rate?

I like how when we talk about taxes, the Republicans are all uber-rich socialites but when we talk about social issues, the Republicans are all Bible-thumping hicks. I wish you people would get your story straight.

[gamerunknown]

I'm guessing they think that the uber-rich socialites are the ones setting policy and controlling public broadcasting, so that the conservative rural voters are convinced to vote against their own economic interests (and not in the "give everything you own to the poor" sense, either).

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Chessic Sense

I like how when we talk about taxes, the Republicans are all uber-rich socialites but when we talk about social issues, the Republicans are all Bible-thumping hicks. I wish you people would get your story straight.

You seriously aren't aware that there are two types of Republicans: the social conservatives and financial conservatives? I mean, I agree that it's a weird marriage, but that's what your party has.

And, no, I'm not saying that all social conservatives are hicks or that all financial conservatives are rich. I'm just pointing out that there are two completely different factions in the Republican party. Thus it's silly to act like someone can't describe them differently.

Come on, don't act like you can't tell the difference between the beliefs of Ayn Rand and Rick Santorum.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Not if the flat tax rate is low enough and exempts people under a certain income line.

That's not a flat tax. It's a progressive tax with only two brackets.

[erislover]

Flat tax would be ok to me with a negative income tax instead of benefits-based welfare. I'd still prefer a negative income tax with a progressive tax scheme but I am not immune to compromise.

[gatorslap]

A flat tax on land value would be progressive in effect.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by gatorslap

A flat tax on land value would be progressive in effect.

There's already a (local) flat tax on land value, everywhere, isn't there? Is it progressive in effect? Or is it regressive in effect (since if you pay rent part of it goes to your landlord's property tax, if you buy something in a store part of the price goes to pay the store's landlord's property tax, etc.)?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Chessic Sense

I like how when we talk about taxes, the Republicans are all uber-rich socialites but when we talk about social issues, the Republicans are all Bible-thumping hicks. I wish you people would get your story straight.

Who mentioned Republicans?

[Voyager]

Since no one responded to my deduction point.

Doing away with deductions would result in major disruptions to the economy. If you dumped the mortgage deduction, you'd have a lot of people paying more taxes. It's fine to say it is revenue neutral,. but that doesn't mean revenue neutral for each person. There are clearly going to be losers and winners, and I have a sneaking suspicion of who the winners are going to be.

Not just that, but municipal bonds are now tax free. is that going to stay? If not, you've just increased the borrowing costs of states and municipalities around the country, and their bad situation is going to get worse.

[gatorslap]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

There's already a (local) flat tax on land value, everywhere, isn't there? Is it progressive in effect? Or is it regressive in effect (since if you pay rent part of it goes to your landlord's property tax, if you buy something in a store part of the price goes to pay the store's landlord's property tax, etc.)?

I don't know how property tax works elsewhere, but in California it is anything but flat or progressive. Instead of actual value, you are taxed based on the value of the property when it was purchased (or re-assessed for major improvements), then adjusted by 2% annually. And that's two percent of the tax, not two percentage points. So two people who own identical homes on identical lots on the same street can be paying hugely different tax amounts. On top of that, most localities have parcel taxes, which are flat taxes on real estate regardless of value, basically $X per deed. Parcel taxes can be enacted on the city, county, or school district level (school districts don't conform to other boundaries).

[DirtyBird]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

if you're making $30,000 a year and your family barely scrapes by, imagine having to do it (assuming a 9% flat tax) on $27,300"

Probably shouldn't be having kids if you're only making $30,000 annually.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by DirtyBird

Probably shouldn't be having kids if you're only making $30,000 annually.

That excludes quite a lot of people, since the US median household income is about $31,000 per annum.

[DirtyBird]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

That excludes quite a lot of people, since the US median household income is about $31,000 per annum.

Oh I'm not saying it should be against the law or anything. I just don't think it's very financially responsible considering DoA estimates put costs of raising a child between $11-13,000 annually.

[Strassia]

Originally Posted by DirtyBird

Oh I'm not saying it should be against the law or anything. I just don't think it's very financially responsible considering DoA estimates put costs of raising a child between $11-13,000 annually.

And of course if you get laid off, injured, or have your hours cuts the responsible thing is to kill your children.

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by Strassia

And of course if you get laid off, injured, or have your hours cuts the responsible thing is to kill your children.

Or sell them to the wealthy to eat.

[DirtyBird]

Originally Posted by Strassia

And of course if you get laid off, injured, or have your hours cuts the responsible thing is to kill your children.

Notice that I said, "having kids". As in, you shouldn't be actively building a family if your income is in or around $30,000.

[gamerunknown]

Somebody needs to read the Road to Wigan Pier.

Or possibly G. K. Chesterton's take on the feeble minded bill.

[amarone]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

That excludes quite a lot of people, since the US median household income is about $31,000 per annum.

That cite gives a way lower than any number I've seen before. Rather than Wikipedia, let's look at what the US Census Bureau has to say:

Real median household income in the United States fell between the 2009 ACS and the 2010 ACS, decreasing by 2.2 percent from $51,190 to $50,046

[BigT]

Originally Posted by amarone

That cite gives a way lower than any number I've seen before. Rather than Wikipedia, let's look at what the US Census Bureau has to say:

The Wikipedia cite comes from the OECD, and refers to equivalized income. That seems to mean that additional household members who don't work (such as children) are counted, but at a reduced rate. This would then be offset by the household members who do work counting more, since their money does not have to factor in the cost of shelter or other household expenses (as this is already done for the primary house owner).

I'm guessing the U.S. census information just counts people who are working.